tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718Tue, 06 Dec 2016 12:07:52 +0000BibleShmuelQueen of the Revel CastleRevelBernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish StudiesPurimBible MotifsJewish Medical EthicsShnayer Z. LeimanAaron Rakeffet-RothkoffBible ParallelsJewish EducationSamuelJordanYU Medical EthicsEducationLoveMosesTeshuvaThe AdeptYeshiva University Medical Ethics SocietyAnimal AbuseAnimal CrueltyBaal Shem TovBeing Gay in the Orthodox WorldBeshtBurning BushChabadDomestic ViolenceEichlerEmotional AbuseFactory FarmingFairy Tales and TanakhGodHasidIntimacyLeadershipLubavitchRabbi Avigdor MillerSexSoloveitchikThe Omnivore's DilemmaThemes or ParallelsTzniusYeshiva UniversityZieglerצער בעלי חיים.A Student's ObligationAbelAbuseAchashveiroshAddictionAliza ShullAmerican AirlinesAmerican Airlines Round Trip TicketsAmerican Airlines' Lousy Customer ServiceAnimal RightsAnimal WelfareAnna KareninaAnonymityAnorexiaAnouk MarkovitsAtonementBais YaakovBehaviorsBen HechtBernard Revel School of Jewish StudiesBetween the Lines of the BibleBible and Pop CultureBiblical WomanBook ReviewBook of JonahBoston BombingsBulimiaBullyingCAFOCainCausing Pain to AnimalsChaiaChallengeChasidChicagoChovos HaTalmidimCivil DiscourseCovenantal WomanDavidDavid RottenstreichDavid and JonathanDavid and JosephDepressionDignity in DefeatDzokharEating AnimalsEating DisordersEchoes of EdenEgyptEthical OmnivorismEvil InclinationFailureFamineFeminismFulfilledGayGay FrumGenderGetting CloserGod's Dwelling PlaceGottesmanGrow and BeholdHasidismHealthy RelationshipsHeroismHevelHog FarmingHolinessHolocaustHolocaust Remembrance DayHomosexualHomosexualityHow Is Sherlock Still AliveHow To Lose a Customer: American AirlinesHuman Beit HaMikdashHungryI Am ForbiddenI Light ItIdentityIndividualIntegrityInterfaithIssuesJean ValjeanJonahJonathan Safran FoerJudahKapparaKayinKingKing MenasheKingsLabelsLes MiserablesLightmanLopatinMESMachloket L'Shem ShamayimMajesty and HumilityManagementManagingManure LagoonsMarket ValuesMarriage Made in HeavenMasqueradeMeaningMelachimMenasheMichael J. SandelMikvaMikvahMoshe WendelMotherMotzi ZeraMythsMyths of Female BeautyNCSYNCSY Chanukah Musical Remix 2010Never Fly American AirlinesOgOrthodox CommunityOrthodox Religious LeadersOrthodoxyPardesPardes RestaurantPassionPerfidyPfiesteriaPharaohPharaoh Narrative as a Tale of AddictionPhysical AbusePiacezna RebbePintele YidPrzysuchPshiskhaPurpose of Jewish EducationR' Moshe FeinsteinRabbi Ari KahnRabbi Aron WolfRabbi Dr. Mordechai Z. CohenRabbi Kalonymous Kalman ShapiraRabbi Schneur Zalman of LiadiRabbi WolfReformReligious LeadersRepairing the WorldRepentanceReuven ZieglerRound Trip TicketsSacred FireSamson Raphael HirschSatedScare RhetoricSean HolianSempo SugiharaSeparationSex ScandalsSexual AbuseSexual DysfunctionSexual ScandalsShelo K'DarkaSherlock ClueSherlock FinaleShimon bar YochaiSimcha BunimSimhah BunimSimple JewSix13SteiplerSteipler's Letter on SexStern College for WomenSugiharaSuicideTAC Vice PresidentTalentsTalmid ChachamTalmud YerushalmiTamerlanTanakhTent-Peg WielderTeshuva and KapparaThank God I Did Attend YUThe Great GatsbyThe Lolita EffectThe Unbecoming of Mara DyerTheTorah.comThreatening AngelsThreatening Encounters With AngelsThrone of GloryTikkun OlamTorah and Derekh EretzTragedyTransformation Through MeaningTrumpTruthTzaar Baalei ChayimTzaddikTzadikTzniutUnfulfilledUrim PublicationsVealWaterWhat Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of MarketsYCTYair ShahakYeshiva BochurYeshivat Chovevei TorahYetzer HaraYom HaShoaYom KippurYonahZev FarberZivug Min Ha-Shamayima brand plucked from the fireaznaim l'torahboazbore a holedefense of factory farmingfreundelrabbiscreedsex in YU Beaconshavuotthronevegetarianismyael zieglerzalman sorotzkinאזנים לתורההֲלוֹא זֶה אוּדהבלזלמןיצר הרעמֻצָּל מֵאֵשׁמעלות התורהסורוצקיןקדושקדושהקיןThe Curious JewLooking for God in humanity.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Chana)Blogger1537125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1635624532979463702Thu, 01 Dec 2016 19:17:00 +00002016-12-01T14:17:34.148-05:00FulfilledJewish EducationMeaningPurpose of Jewish EducationTransformation Through MeaningTruthUnfulfilledThe Purpose of Jewish Education: Transformation Through MeaningRecently, Dr. David Bryfman<a href="http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/when-youre-happy-and-you-know-it-the-true-purpose-of-jewish-education/?utm_source=Mon+Nov+28n**&amp;utm_campaign=Mon+Nov+28&amp;utm_medium=email" target="_blank"> proposed that the purpose of Jewish education ought to be to empower people to "thrive in today's world."</a> He followed that sentence with "For Jewish education to be successful, it must hold at its core the mission to make people happy." He then qualifies:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Not ‘happy’ in the smiley or laughing sense of the word, although the world surely needs a whole lot more of both these days. But ‘happy’ as in fulfilled; enabling young people to flourish by helping students feel like they are putting forth the best version of themselves."</blockquote>&nbsp;I fundamentally disagree with Dr. Bryfman's view and would like to propose an alternative approach.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The purpose of Jewish education should be to transform individuals through making them aware of the meaning in and of their lives.</blockquote>This may be what Bryfman intended when he talked about happiness as fulfillment or as enabling young people to present the best version of themselves. Additionally, he indicated that Jewish education should enable individuals to answer existential questions such as:<br /><br /><ul><li>Who am I?</li><li>Where do I fit in this world?&nbsp;</li><li>How can I live a more fulfilling life?</li><li>How can I make the world a better place?&nbsp;</li></ul><br />I would agree that personal fulfillment and identity creation are important. But I do not agree with the idea that these are the ultimate goals and that in order to achieve them, Judaism should be marketed to people based on what appeals to them. I do not agree with a learner-centered focus in the way that Bryfman suggests it. Bryfman believes that a learner-centered focus involves appealing to individuals with the Jewish traditions that will be most meaningful and valuable to them as opposed to trying to transmit an entire canon of Jewish practice. (Examples from his article: "<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Lora, serif; font-size: 16px;">For some, it could be that the concept of&nbsp;</span><em style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Lora, serif; font-size: 16px;">Shabbat</em><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Lora, serif; font-size: 16px;">&nbsp;signals a welcome break from the frenetic pace of everyday life. For others, it will be when a connection to Israel offers a deeper relationship to one’s heritage or people. Or perhaps it could be when Jewish teachings offer confidence to respond to the demands, stresses, frustrations and even tragedies that one encounters in life.")</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #617984; font-family: Lora, serif; font-size: 16px;">&nbsp;</span>I would agree that sharing what is immediately valuable to a Jewish individual is a starting point but it is by no means an end point or an end goal.<br /><br />I am reminded of a scene in the <i>Harry Potter </i>series. Sirius Black is able to keep sane while at Azkaban, a feat few others can achieve. He is surrounded by Dementors who suck every happy thought out of a person. So what is it that sets him apart? Why can he stay sane? He explains:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">"I think the only reason I never lost my mind is that I knew I was innocent. That wasn't a happy thought, so the dementors couldn't suck it out of me...but it kept me sane and knowing who I am...helped me keep my powers."&nbsp;</blockquote>Knowing the truth is what keeps Sirius grounded. It isn't happiness or personal fulfillment that saves him- it's meaning. Judaism is not about helping people thrive solely in today's world. Today's world is very self-centered. We perform our lives for social media. Happiness tends to be about hedonism and personal pleasure. Granted, there are certain individuals who will find their deepest happiness in helping others, but ask your typical teenager and they will talk to you about how materialism (having the newest iPhone etc) is what makes them happy. Even in Bryfman's piece, he talks about the goal being ensuring that individuals are personally "fulfilled." It is, once more, about the self. I disagree with that approach. No, happiness is not the solution. Judaism is about helping people find meaning in their lives, being inspired by the heroes and heroines of Jewish text and determining how to transform the self in order to be more like them. It is not about the self, fulfilled. It is about the self even when that self is <i>unfulfilled</i>. It is about that self when that self is struggling. There will be many occasions in life where one will not be happy, but a true grasp of one's Judaism will assist that person in surviving the seemingly insurmountable challenge. Judaism offers a connection with God, a connection with incredible characters, and blueprints of how to deal with tremendous challenge and pain. This is what will assist an individual in the invariable ups and downs of life.<br /><br />Judaism is larger than self. It is, as Rabbi Soloveitchik once explained, not a panacea but more of a Pandora's box. Being Jewish means asking questions and struggling with man and God (the meaning of the word Israel). It is not about ourselves on a journey to fulfillment. Moses was not fulfilled when he died within sight of the Land, forbidden to enter. Saul was not fulfilled when he was told David would take his throne. Jeremiah was not fulfilled when he was appointed a prophet, chosen by God for a difficult mission. Judaism is about <i>meaning </i>and the kind of meaning that is so important that personal fulfillment becomes secondary. It is about ourselves on a journey to find meaning, meaning that will influence who we should strive to become, not who we are today.<br /><br />Happiness is a low bar to set. Judaism should be about transforming individuals, meeting them at first by offering what is of immediate interest, but making a long term goal of allowing people to access the teachings that speak to what <i>must </i>be accomplished. This should refer to growth both in oneself and in the world at large. No, Judaism should not be made to cater to one's personal beliefs about what will make one happy or fulfilled. Rather, the individual should shift in accordance to the questions posed to them by the Jewish tradition.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-purpose-of-jewish-education.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-181718086211661978Fri, 25 Nov 2016 06:23:00 +00002016-11-25T01:23:48.897-05:00BooksI'm happy to say I've been reading a lot lately. Most of my reading takes the form of audiobooks. I love that I now enjoy washing dishes, folding laundry and mopping floors-because that's my time to read! In the past week, I've read <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Nutshell-Novel-Ian-McEwan/dp/0385542070" target="_blank">Nutshell</a> </i>by Ian McEwan, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Big-Little-Lies-Liane-Moriarty/dp/0425274861" target="_blank">Big Little Lies</a> </i>by Liane Moriarty, <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Loner-Novel-Teddy-Wayne/dp/1501107895/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1480053797&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=loner+teddy" target="_blank">Loner</a> </i>by Teddy Wayne and <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/True-Loves-Taylor-Jenkins-Reid/dp/1476776903/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1480053814&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=one+true+loves" target="_blank">One True Loves</a> </i>by Taylor Jenkins Reid. All of them were fascinating in very different ways.<br /><br /><i>Nutshell </i>was a take on Hamlet, with Claude and Trudy (as stand-ins for Claudius and Gertrude) plotting to commit murder in order to be together. But the perspective from which it was told was unlike any other.<br /><br /><i>Big Little Lies </i>helped me understand why an affluent woman would stay with a physically abusive man. The story was seriocomic and so much of it rang true (the in-fighting between kindergarten mums could have been set in the Five Towns) but the deeper message was excellent. I watched the trailer for the HBO series and it bears little resemblance to the fleshed-out, entertaining but fully human characters in the book.<br /><br /><i>Loner </i>was terrifying and dragged me down into the world of T.J. Lane and Elliot Rodger. I realized that young people who are remorseless are the most disturbing type of villain. As an astute friend noted (Lightman), I expect the young to be good, impressionable, desirous of changing the world for the better. When killers are young, it seems worse.<br /><br />I finished <i>One True Loves </i>most recently so that's the one that's still on my mind. The premise of the book is far-fetched. (A woman marries a man who is lost at sea and presumed dead. In time, she moves on, dates another man and becomes engaged. Then the first man- her husband- returns. She's now faced with an impossible choice.) Despite this, and the extremely quick resolution- unlikely to occur in real life-it had some wonderful ideas and quotes that I would like to write down here so that I can return to them.<br /><br />1. "You're supposed to be Penelope. You're supposed to knit the shroud day in and day out and stay up every night unraveling it to keep the suitors at bay. You're not supposed to have a life of your own, needs of your own. You're not supposed to love again. But I did. That's exactly what I did."<br /><br />2. "There is other love out there for me. But it's different. It isn't this. It isn't this exact love. It's better and it's worse. But I guess that's sort of the point of love between two people- you can't re-create it. Every time you love, everyone you love, the love is different. You're different in it."<br /><br />I liked those concepts. I think many people assume that they're only supposed to love once, and I think it's insightful to note that the people we are tend to change and shift in accordance with the people we love (likely for better and for worse). Or perhaps- who we are at the time dictates who we love.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/11/books.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-3404891828469645134Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:13:00 +00002016-11-16T01:15:19.082-05:00IdentityIntegrityJean ValjeanLes MiserablesMosesOn Identity & Integrity: Jean Valjean & MosesThe books that call to me like siren songs are those that wrestle with the question of identity. Is Hamlet mad or a consummate actor? Can Proctor live if he must sign his name to lies? Who would the Phantom have been if his genius had been respected, his skeletal face ignored? Why does the intelligent Anna Karenina fall for the foolish cad Vronsky? Does McMurphy care more for himself or for the plight of others? I seek to discover what it is in each character that makes them deeply human, as this is how I learn to love them.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the most powerful moments in biblical literature occurs when Moses, adoptive son of Pharoah's daughter, chooses to ally himself with his Hebrew brethren. In that climactic moment, Moses must choose: is he a Hebrew or an Egyptian? Does he care solely for himself or also for others? Is he willing to risk his wealth, status, inheritance and very life for the sake of a man he does not know?<br /><br />I realized tonight that Moses' choice is echoed in the famous work <i>Les Miserables. </i>In this work convict Jean Valjean escapes and reforms himself, becoming mayor of a city and enabling its inhabitants to live well and justly. Unfortunately, legalistic inspector Javert will not give up his search for the escaped convict. Through an accident of fate, a different man is assumed to be Valjean, and will be tried and sentenced in his place. Knowing this, the real Valjean must determine whether he has a moral obligation to expose himself and suffer the consequences of telling the truth. Originally, in the book, Victor Hugo portrays Jean Valjean's dilemma as follows:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">There was a moment when he reflected on the future. Denounce himself, great God! Deliver himself up! With immense despair he faced all that he should be obliged to leave, all that he should be obliged to take up once more. He should have to bid farewell to that existence which was so good, so pure, so radiant, to the respect of all, to honor, to liberty. He should never more stroll in the fields; he should never more hear the birds sing in the month of May; he should never more bestow alms on the little children; he should never more experience the sweetness of having glances of gratitude and love fixed upon him; he should quit that house which he had built, that little chamber! Everything seemed charming to him at that moment. Never again should he read those books; never more should he write on that little table of white wood; his old portress, the only servant whom he kept, would never more bring him his coffee in the morning. Great God! instead of that, the convict gang, the iron necklet, the red waistcoat, the chain on his ankle, fatigue, the cell, the camp bed all those horrors which he knew so well! At his age, after having been what he was! If he were only young again! but to be addressed in his old age as “thou” by any one who pleased; to be searched by the convict-guard; to receive the galley-sergeant’s cudgellings; to wear iron-bound shoes on his bare feet; to have to stretch out his leg night and morning to the hammer of the roundsman who visits the gang; to submit to the curiosity of strangers, who would be told: “That man yonder is the famous Jean Valjean, who was mayor of M. sur M.”; and at night, dripping with perspiration, overwhelmed with lassitude, their green caps drawn over their eyes, to remount, two by two, the ladder staircase of the galleys beneath the sergeant’s whip. Oh, what misery! Can destiny, then, be as malicious as an intelligent being, and become as monstrous as the human heart?</span>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">And do what he would, he always fell back upon the heartrending dilemma which lay at the foundation of his reverie: “Should he remain in paradise and become a demon? Should he return to hell and become an angel?”</span>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">What was to be done? Great God! what was to be done?</span></blockquote><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">In the musical adaptation, Valjean's conflict is portrayed within the moving song "Who Am I?"</span><br /><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"><br /></span><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wL-FyKkdxw4/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wL-FyKkdxw4?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">The entire song is powerful, but the part which echoes Moses' choice is this:</span><br /><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"><br /></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 16px;">Who am I?</div><div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 16px;">Can I condemn this man to slavery</div><div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 16px;">Pretend I do not see his agony</div><div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 16px;">This innocent who bears my face</div><div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 16px;">Who goes to judgement in my place</div><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"></span><br /><div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 16px;">Who am I?</div><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"><br /></span>It is precisely this question with which Moses struggles. At his core, who <i>is </i>he? What does he stand for? What are his values? Can he choose passivity even if not apathy? Can he choose the life he has known since he was weaned or must he throw it all away due to an ideal? Those of us who grow up with the story as children fail to see the tremendous moral struggle with which Moses engages. He looks "this way and that way" - determining who he is. At his core, is he Egyptian or Hebrew? Is he Jean Valjean or Monsieur Madeleine?<br /><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">And in the end, as we know, Moses determines that he is a Hebrew. He kills the Egyptian.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;"><br /></span><span style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">When Valjean speaks to Marius towards the end of the novel, he tells him:&nbsp;</span>"You ask why I speak? I am neither denounced, nor pursued, nor tracked, you say. Yes! I am denounced! yes! I am tracked! By whom? By myself. It is I who bar the passage to myself, and I drag myself, and I push myself, and I arrest myself, and I execute myself, and when one holds oneself, one is firmly held."<br /><br />Valjean and Moses are both men of integrity. Their identity is constructed based on their integrity. They cannot lie. They are not men of words, able to dissemble and perform in a politically staged manner for the sake of their own benefit- or even the benefit of others. In the same manner that Valjean considers the welfare of the city that depends on him, Moses could have waited, biding his time until (perhaps) he would become monarch, resolving to change the working conditions of the Hebrews at that point. But both of them realize this would be wrong. There is a moment of very real crisis and the response must be <i>now</i>- one cannot wait.<br /><br />To live a meaningful life is to embrace the message of Moses &amp; Valjean. Live with integrity. Be willing to do what is right, no matter the cost. Construct an identity based on core values. And recognize that one must aspire to live a life where one drags oneself, pushes oneself, arrests oneself and executes oneself. One who lives thusly does not fear death.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/11/on-identity-integrity-jean-valjean-moses.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1944898913113195859Tue, 15 Nov 2016 06:26:00 +00002016-11-15T01:26:52.290-05:00Civil DiscourseScare RhetoricTrumpOn Trump, Scare Rhetoric & Civil Discourse It's lucky I'm a liberal, because otherwise I would be having a pretty hard time at Northwestern.<br /><br />It's <i>de rigueur </i>for students to be distraught over the outcome of the election. On the one hand, I appreciate that Donald Trump is a morally repugnant, unpleasant man. On the other hand, it's become increasingly clear that people create their own narrative of events and stick to it, ignoring evidence in favor of their personal flavor of frustration.<br /><br />Donald Trump is already walking back many of his statements. Where before, he declared that he would deport all illegal immigrants, he is<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-deport-immigrants.html?_r=0" target="_blank"> now limiting his plan to deporting those with criminal records</a>. Where before, he said that one of his first acts in office would be to overturn Obamacare, <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlaszewski2/2016/11/12/it-isnt-news-that-trump-wants-to-keep-the-pre-existing-condition-reforms-he-said-so-in-february/#414fabf67ccf" target="_blank">he now wants to keep the clauses that allow children to stay on their parents' health insurance into their 20s and which forbid insurance companies from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions.</a> Where before, he maligned Obama and referred to him in insulting ways, he is <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/obama-is-planning-to-give-trump-some-extra-tutoring.html" target="_blank">now willing to be tutored by Obama </a>because he has been humbled by the realization that he does not actually understand the scope of the presidency.<br /><br />During the third presidential debate, Hillary Clinton decried Trump's "scare rhetoric" and alarmist tactics when it came to his factually incorrect description of partial birth abortion. I think the same point can be made about current responses to Trump. Too many news outlets have been engaging in alarmist scare rhetoric, such that I even have liberal friends who are comparing the man to Hitler. I do not like Trump as a human being; he has chosen to be or don a persona that is misogynist, sexist and (intentionally or unintentionally) racist. Despite this, he is not Hitler. He has no plans of perpetrating mass genocide. To suggest otherwise is to enter the theater of the absurd.<br /><br />There does <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/fbi-hate-crimes-muslims.html" target="_blank">appear to have been a rise in hate crimes</a> due to people who think they know what Trump stands for and who believe themselves to be empowered by Trump. I question whether one can really hold Trump directly responsible for this; that seems similar to holding Eminem or other recording artists responsible for individuals who perpetrate crimes based on their music. (Of course, one could argue that someone running for such a public office as President bears more responsibility for his language than a recording artist.) I agree that it would behoove Trump to distance himself from these groups and condemn the hate crimes in very strong language, and thus far, he has not done that. This is certainly problematic.<br /><br />I am disturbed by language in our media (especially media that skews liberal) that attacks individuals, not based on the merits, but based on who they are. For example, Ben Carson has been tipped to become the Secretary of Education. An explanation based on the merits would argue that Ben Carson has absolutely no qualifications for this position. Just because one has been educated in this country, created a foundation to hand out scholarships and has served as a prominent surgeon does not an educator make. An educator would be someone who has really thought about how public, private and charter schools are being run today, who understands policy issues, funding issues, cultural and racial issues and who has a plan to better our schools overall. An educator would be someone willing to listen to individuals across all viewpoints in an effort to lead with humility.<br /><br />But the articles I am reading about Carson do not make these simple, sensible arguments. Instead, they<a href="https://newrepublic.com/minutes/138669/brace-yourselves-education-secretary-ben-carson" target="_blank"> talk about him as a creationist, deriding him for his religious views</a>. People assume that because he is religious, he must also be ignorant. Because he believes in creation, it must mean that he wants all children in all public schools to be taught mythology rather than scientific reality. Now, it's possible that Carson has indeed stated this publicly and that I have just missed it. In that case, I would be troubled, as public schools must respect the separation between church and state. But until I see this stated publicly, Carson ought to be critiqued on the merits, and not because liberals cannot stand that he believes in God.<br /><br />Our society as a whole would benefit from more civil discourse. Civil discourse would mean that liberals would not assume condescendingly that people who are religious only are that way due to a lack of exposure to other beliefs and ways of being. They would not assume that their values are the only correct values. It would also mean conservatives would not paint all liberals as out to corrupt their children. Our society is becoming increasingly black and white, and our news outlets are losing the ability to construct nuanced pieces. It's much easier for two sides to stand up and shout at one another than it is for the two to come together and truly <i>hear </i>one another. Hearing means reserving judgment and looking at the other person as a fellow human being.<br /><br />It is important for us to stand up for fellow humans if they are being attacked or harmed. Thus, I applaud various initiatives that seek to make humans feel safe- such as wearing a safety pin or trying to create more camaraderie in the world. I disagree with continuing the divisive rhetoric by promoting protests, riots or ridiculous hashtags such as #NotMyPresident. You do not have to agree with Trump's values, nor do you have to respect him, to be governed by him. It is imperative that you recognize that this is not Syria. We are not directly at risk from ISIS or Boko Haram. We do not (for the most part) experience famine or water crises. There are people out there in the world who are experiencing actual disasters and Donald Trump as president is not one of these. He is foolish and possibly incompetent, maybe even dangerously so, but luckily we have a system of checks and balances in place that will prevent him from doing too much harm. If he does something unconstitutional, we have the ability to impeach him. Trump is hemmed in by laws and statutes. Thus, rather than grieving that people in the world do not share your values, the time has come to let those values shine- in a positive way. Give blood. Perform random acts of kindness. Volunteer your time with a worthy organization. Bring more good into the world. If you act like the kind of person others would want to become, they will come to you and ask to learn from you. This is the way to influence others and win respect.<br /><br /><i>If </i>Trump begins to act in a way that directly threatens others, that will be the time to defend those individuals' human rights. But right now, it's time to be constructive, not destructive. As Mad-Eye Moody would say, "Constant vigilance!" Be watchful. Be ready. But in the meantime- actively work to be kind. Try to find what you have in common with someone who supports the candidate you did not vote for. Look for what is similar between you, not for what is different. If dialogue begins with love, it is far more powerful. Try to begin dialogues with love.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/11/on-trump-scare-rhetoric-civil-discourse.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1588551662432674436Mon, 14 Nov 2016 07:41:00 +00002016-11-14T02:41:49.757-05:00LoveLoveI've read Rilke's <i><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Rainer-Maria-Rilke/dp/1577311558/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;psc=1&amp;refRID=Q16B7AY3RVBVR8RWX9Z4" target="_blank">Letters to a Young Poet</a> </i>many, many times. He writes a letter about love in which he warns that young people do not yet know how to love. They smash themselves against one another, and in the collision, break themselves to pieces.<br /><br />I find myself thinking about this as I approach my sixth anniversary.<br /><br />I have gone through so many transitions when it comes to things I believe. Though I am still young, I remember that when I was even younger I was troubled by these transitions. I felt like I was not being true to myself if I was constantly changing my mind. I believe it was my father who pointed out to me that I was changing my mind because I had acquired new evidence. Thus, I was not being fickle. I was being reflective. And it is good to be reflective, because it is through reflection that one determines whether one's practices are useful, meaningful or good.<br /><br />I appreciate transitions much more now. I recognize that if I have reached a point of transition, it is because I have learned something important I could not fully comprehend or synthesize before.<br /><br />Today, I'm thinking about love.<br /><br />Originally, I thought of love as urgent, desperate, wild passion that pushed back the raging dark. Love to me was a barrier, the last white, great flame that would surround me when I felt certain that I would dissolve. Love was intense and it was its intensity that I craved. What I longed for, more than anything else, was to be thrown high upon crested waters, riding waves that would buoy me up when I felt I might be falling.<br /><br />And there is power to that love. I won't deny it.<br /><br />But the love one needs to fight back the dark is not love in its deepest form. One might say it is the very tip of the jutting iceberg, clear and understandable even as an adolescent. This is the love that cuts, burns, grinds down, sparks, careens, swoops and buffets.<br /><br />This is not the love I feel now.<br /><br />My current love is a steady, nurtured emotion. It is one I have tended. I have watered it like a plant, exposed it to sunlight and made sure the soil is loamy, rich and thick. It is a deep, deep feeling, and it pulses so faintly that I am not always aware of it. It is like my breath. It comes steadily, easily, so much a part of me that I forget it. Except, of course, for those times I pause to concentrate on it. This is the love that forms when people have seen one another, broken and whole, and recognize the beauty in the person seated before them. This is a quiet love, a forever love, the rope that is forged strand by strand, carefully, slowly woven together to form Gleipnir.<br /><br />There is still passion. I can leap and twirl and dance and know his hand is outstretched, ready to clasp mine. I can feel sunbursts of joy exploding in my chest. The dark is still held back, but this time, it's not because of him. It's because of me.<br /><br />The world is a very large place and we are but two people in it.<br />The world is a very large place but we are two people in it.<br /><br />We are the children in a storybook, his hand pressed in mine. A sun sinks beneath the earth in a conflagration of orange, indigo and red. We watch, transfixed.<br />I turn. I lean against his side.<br />"Let's walk," I say.<br />He nods. "That way," he points.<br /><br />We find each other in the journey.<br /><br /><br />http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/11/love.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-4157874925355529184Sun, 30 Oct 2016 02:19:00 +00002016-10-29T22:19:17.136-04:00AbelCainHevelHolinessKayinSeparationSoloveitchikהבלקדושקדושהקיןKayin, Hevel, קדושה & SacrificesA typical reading of the story of Cain &amp; Abel leaves one puzzled. Why does God prefer sheep? What's wrong with a vegetable offering?<br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ב</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת, אֶת-אָחִיו אֶת-הָבֶל; וַיְהִי-הֶבֶל, רֹעֵה צֹאן, וְקַיִן, הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>2</b>&nbsp;And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="3"></a><b>ג</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיְהִי, מִקֵּץ יָמִים; וַיָּבֵא קַיִן <b><span style="color: red;">מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה, מִנְחָה--לַיהוָה.</span></b></td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>3</b>&nbsp;And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought <b><span style="color: red;">of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.</span></b></td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="4"></a><b>ד</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם-הוּא <b><span style="color: red;">מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ, וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן</span></b>; וַיִּשַׁע יְהוָה, אֶל-הֶבֶל וְאֶל-מִנְחָתוֹ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>4</b>&nbsp;And Abel, he also<b><span style="color: red;"> brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. </span></b>And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering;</td></tr></tbody></table><br />I'd like to suggest something else might be going on here.<br /><br />The name קין comes from the root קנה which means to acquire. The term is usually used when it comes to possessions. Thus, the name קין seems inherently linked to materialism.<br /><br />הבל, in contrast, <i>can </i>be translated futility. But another meaning of that word would be a fleeting breath, and fellow blogger Steg suggested the word "ephemeral." Things that are ephemeral are short-lived, but more than that, they also seem to connote something intangible. Our lives, to God's view, are ephemeral. We live and in the blink of an eye, we die. Thus, I think a case can be made that הבל, whose name connotes that which is fleeting, is likely to be someone who focuses on spirituality. He would be interested in something beyond the transient and transitory, having reflected on that (and on the meaning of his name).<br /><br />Now we need to recall an important fact. Prior to the Flood, mankind was forbidden to eat meat. Their diet was comprised of fruits and vegetables. Meat was separate, sacred, something God was permitted and man was not.<br /><br />So when קין offers his vegetable sacrifice, he is offering God something that he is permitted to eat as well. <i>Here God, </i>he's saying, <i>enjoy the same vegetables I am permitted to enjoy.</i><br /><i><br /></i>In contrast, when הבל offers his sheep, he is offering God something of which he is <i>not </i>permitted to partake. This shows a deep understanding of what it means for something to be קדוש, special or sacred. Something is קדוש when it is separate, a thing apart. To be קדוש is to observe laws of separation. This separation occurs in what Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik refers to as the dignity in defeat, where one holds back one's own power and strength because one recognizes the authority of God over him. One does not sleep with one's wife when she is a <i>niddah.</i>&nbsp;One does not perform work on the Sabbath. One does not eat non-kosher foods. One does not marry outside the faith.<br /><br />The sin of Adam and Eve was one where they wished to be "like God."<br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ד</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיֹּאמֶר הַנָּחָשׁ, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה:&nbsp; לֹא-מוֹת, תְּמֻתוּן.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>4</b>&nbsp;And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="5"></a><b>ה</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;כִּי, יֹדֵעַ אֱלֹהִים, כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְכֶם מִמֶּנּוּ, וְנִפְקְחוּ עֵינֵיכֶם; <b><span style="color: red;">וִהְיִיתֶם, כֵּאלֹהִים</span></b>, יֹדְעֵי, טוֹב וָרָע.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>5</b>&nbsp;for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,<b><span style="color: red;"> and ye shall be as God</span></b>, knowing good and evil.'</td></tr></tbody></table><br />They did not understand that קדושה is about הבדלה, separations. They did not see why one tree had to be reserved for God and was not permitted to them. By eating of the tree that God had set aside, they declared that they did not need to observe separations and lacked an understanding of their role in the world.<br /><br />הבל, in offering up a sheep, is rectifying their sin. He is saying: God, I understand that meat is sacred. It is only for you to have or enjoy. So I will slaughter this sheep and offer it up to You as a way of demonstrating my understanding that You are God and this is uniquely Yours, not mine. I understand my role and the fact that to be holy is to be separate- and to understand separations and boundaries. By offering this to you, I affirm my comprehension.<br /><br /><i>This </i>is why God would accept הבל's offering but not קין's. It's also why God warns קין that sin is crouching at the door, waiting for him. If קין does not understand his role vs. God's- if his focus is on inviting God to partake of what he, too, can partake of- then he sees himself as equal to God. קין, like his parents before him, will strive to be "like God" in the sense that he does not accept the separateness of his role vs. God's. And indeed, that is exactly what happens. קין performs the first murder- taking life, which is a right reserved for God. קין determines that he has the right to kill, just as God has the right to end lives. God punishes קין in accordance with his logic. קין saw himself as equal to God, offering God the same vegetables of which he could partake- now the bloodied earth will not produce for him, and he will not grow any vegetables at all. He will be a wanderer and fugitive. The brother who should have been by his side is not there- will not witness Cain's marriage or the birth of his children. Because he has chosen to be a god, he will be hidden from God's face. Cain is condemned to live, and every day of his life will be a crushing reminder of the many ways in which he is not, in fact, a god. What הבל understood originally is what קין will come to understand- there is God and there is man, and the two are not the same.<br /><br />http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/10/kayin-hevel-sacrifices.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1394206878929906275Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:04:00 +00002016-10-27T16:04:54.916-04:00Jewish EducationTanakhCelebrating SuccessI tend to be highly self-critical. My focus is on what is flawed, what can be improved, and the ways in which we can grow based on what did not go well. In my classroom, every day, I think about what I did not do well and try to come up with plans about how to do it better.<br /><br />Today, however, there was a happy moment. And I think it's important to attempt to catalog the moments that are successful along with the ones I want to change.<br /><br />I was teaching a group of 9th grade girls. They were responsible for learning a Seforno &amp; a Ramban (which I provided with English translation) regarding Pharoah's plan. What kind of villain is Pharaoh? Did he plan out every step of his mass murder of Jewish males or did he simply make plans up as he went along? The foundation for this discussion was laid in previous sessions when we talked about different Disney villains and how some of them are masterminds whose evil schemes are premeditated (Scar from "The Lion King") and some are merely opportunists (Hans from "Frozen").<br /><br />I divided the students up into two groups. One group was responsible for reading the Seforno. The other was responsible for reading the Ramban. I asked that the groups help each other make sense of the assigned text and the reading questions I had written. The end goal was for each group to present in front of the class and teach the text they had read to the remaining students.<br /><br />At first, the students read silently. I was concerned they would all end up working individually rather than working together. But then, after I reminded and prompted them, they began to discuss the commentaries in their respective groups. The beautiful thing was that they were talking to <i>each other</i>, not to me. This Socratic style discussion involved critical thinking because the students had to listen to and respectfully disagree with one another when it came to answering questions that had been posed. I stepped in to remind them to look at the text they had just read to find proof or evidence to answer the questions.<br /><br />I heard things like...<br /><br />"But wasn't the reason that Pharoah was against them because there were just so many of them?"<br />"I thought it said that they weren't assimilating into the Egyptian culture."<br />"What you said is over here," and she pointed at the paper, "but if you read a little later on, you'll see..."<br />"His original goal was to enslave them, I thought."<br />"If you see <i>here</i>," and she pointed at the paper, "it says his original goal was to make them leave, but in such a way that Egypt wouldn't end up looking responsible."<br /><br />That's what critical thinking is all about. Students being able to make sense of text, help <i>each other&nbsp;</i>understand text and then use evidence to back up their points. This is a constructivist approach to learning where the students take ownership of the task and collaborate together to assist one other in comprehending, considering and eventually, pushing back against or questioning the material. Today, I facilitated learning...and I felt like a rock star.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/10/celebrating-success.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1157137500181982773Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:04:00 +00002016-10-20T17:04:23.660-04:00Let's Begin AgainToo many words are coursing beneath my skin, minnows flitting through a stream of silver blood. I have ideas to share, words to speak- ideas about parenting, gifted education, teacher education and leadership in general and within the Jewish community. So perhaps now is the time to begin again.<br /><br />When I'm not writing, I feel disconnected from myself. Worse, I feel disconnected from God, who I tend to discover, rediscover and fall in love with through words. So it's time to dance again. To feel the music thrum within my veins and try to uncover the meaning behind my life. There's something to it, something I'm meant to do, although I keep on reaching and still cannot determine what it may be.<br /><br />Writing is a way of wandering, exploring possibilities in an effort to determine which one is best. What makes the most sense? Which path should I take? What does it mean to love somebody? What is the best way to take care of someone else, adult or child? How do you show mutual respect for one another? These are the questions we solve when we put pen to paper, trying to give voice to the questions and doubts that inhabit our brains.<br /><br />So let's begin again. Let's see whether I can get back to myself, sharing what I am learning with all of you in an effort to learn and grow each day.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/10/lets-begin-again.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-5445421689183667987Mon, 30 May 2016 23:39:00 +00002016-05-30T19:39:32.416-04:00Stern College for WomenThank God I Did Attend YUYeshiva UniversityThank God I Did Attend YUI am seven years post my undergraduate career at YU. I will be attending graduate school at Northwestern next year, pursuing a two-year Masters degree in Teacher Leadership, and feel that now is an appropriate time to reflect on what I gained from my college experience.<br /><br />Upon graduating high school, my guidance counselors urged me to attend one of the schools they had selected for me. Kenyon, Colgate, Bard, Vassar, University of Michigan and University of Chicago all made the list. For those not in the know, these are some of the top liberal arts programs in America, as my passion was English Literature. I was very torn about which college to attend and was leaning towards the University of Chicago, to which I had applied and been accepted. I felt convinced that I ought to attend that school. However, my father convinced me that I should at least give YU a shot. Reluctantly, I showed up at YU in the fall, having told my parents that if I was unhappy there I would transfer to UChicago.<br /><br />My first few months at YU were very hard. Every other student in my grade was spending their year in Israel. I knew one other person at YU - and that was it. I did not have many relatives in New York. I spent Shabbat after Shabbat on campus, finding this experience both lonely and isolating. I did meet one person in a shared Brookdale elevator because her father had told her about me. But my life at YU really began the Shabbat the Chemistry Club sponsored Shabbat at Stern and I met three kind people who invited me to join them for pizza on Motzei Shabbat. These people turned into close friends and slowly my circle expanded.<br /><br />At YU, I was lucky enough to participate in the FTOC (First Time on Campus) Program, Honors Program, Israel Club, Medical Ethics Society, write for <i>The Commentator </i>and<i>&nbsp;</i>serve as Editor-in-Chief of <i>The Observer</i>. I was able to forge strong relationships with my professors, rabbis and mentors, attend lectures on topics I found profoundly interesting and branch out in many ways. I studied sociology, the rise of the novel, ancient medieval philosophy, psychology and had an internship at <i>The Forward </i>that counted for college credit among other adventures. I attended student driven programs created by Simcha G,<a href="http://judaicstudies.yale.edu/people/simcha-gross" target="_blank"> now a PhD candidate at Yale in Judaic Studies</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilah_Kletenik" target="_blank">Gilah K</a>, now an assistant rabbi at Kehilat Jeshurun, Dr. Stuart Halpern, Assistant Director of Student Programming &amp; Community Outreach at Revel and noted scholar and the list goes on. I met a wide variety of students, some of whom were observant and many of whom were not. These students each manifested unique talents and abilities and were diverse in their interests. For example, Max T now runs <a href="https://www.etsy.com/shop/RootsandCrownsPDX" target="_blank">Roots and Crowns</a>, an herbal apothecary, out of Portland, Oregon while Sarah M is one of the founders of the <a href="http://www.opententtheater.com/" target="_blank">Open Tent Theater Company</a> in Manhattan. Marc F <a href="http://presentense.org/marc-fein" target="_blank">works at the pluralistic Presentense group</a> and facilitates a cohort of Jewish Educators who want to use technology to improve day school education. Ben Greenfield is getting semikha from YCT and recently ran a seder on Riker's Island for Jewish convicts. Yaelle F is earning her PhD in Jewish History from NYU. Rabbi Ari N <a href="http://maryland.jliconline.org/" target="_blank">has served as the JLIC director at the University of Maryland</a> for the past three years and has now accepted an assistant rabbi position in Ohio. This is aside from the more typical array of students who attended top ranked medical, dental, law and business graduate programs.<br /><br />I went to YU and I was not trapped within "a ridiculous dating world plaguing Modern Orthodoxy." My husband found me because he appreciated my writing. He wrote to me and we became friends. We eventually decided to try dating, it worked, and after a beautiful proposal he married me.<br /><br />I went to YU and I do not have a closed minded view of the world. I have worked at one of the best known pluralistic schools in America, the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School, and have a deep appreciation for the views and ideas of others. I am certainly not skeptical of science, nor is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, a role model of mine, who <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Partnership-Science-Religion-Meaning/dp/0805212507" target="_blank">wrote a book about that</a>. I consistently talk to people of many different backgrounds, with a special emphasis on my Uber drivers, many of whom are immigrants who have had fascinating experiences in both their past and present lives. I teach Judaic Studies at a Modern Orthodox day school, something I would not be doing had I not attended YU. Instead, I would likely be a teacher of English Literature or possibly a professor, and while that would be important work, I do not believe it would be the most valuable contribution I could make to my community. I am going to study gifted individuals this year and my hope is to assist the Jewish day school community in determining best practices when serving the gifted population. I hope to become a leader in that field.<br /><br />Attending another university would certainly have helped me to grow in a myriad of ways. That is what I realized when I spent a Shabbat as a prospective student at UChicago. I would likely have been deeply involved in Hillel, led my community in a number of ways, interacted with extremely brilliant individuals and learned assiduously and eagerly. But I would not have been able to make my way within the field of religious study with mentors and teachers who were role models in addition to fonts of knowledge. I know because I sat in on some Bible classes at UChicago and was disturbed by the mockery in each teacher's approach. I did not feel that the teacher needed to believe the Bible was true but I did feel it was inappropriate to mock a text considered sacred by so many, and of course by me. I also formed some of my closest friendships to individuals I met either within my YU environment or in New York. Additionally, I became exposed to what is beautiful in Haredi Judaism, something that would not have happened anyplace else.<br /><br />YU is what you make of it. It is appropriate for some students and not the right choice for others. Certainly it is possible for people to choose to stick to what they know and refuse to consider another's point of view, but that is a phenomenon that can occur anywhere. It is not limited to YU. Personally, I was glad to attend YU, felt that I met a wide variety of people there, and certainly encountered endless numbers of fascinating individuals on the New York subway (much like Brandon Stanton). I made friends with homeless people and random strangers in Starbucks alike. I grew, I learned, I loved, and I became a person who wanted to work in the field of Jewish Education due to my exposure to truly thoughtful Jewish educators (I'm looking at you Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Cohen and Rabbi Dr. Sid Z. Leiman). Thank you, YU, for what you gave me.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2016/05/thank-god-i-did-attend-yu.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-2726071251906758390Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:50:00 +00002015-12-30T11:50:26.691-05:00MasqueradeDarkness and Renewal: My Twenty-Seventh Birthday MasqueradeFor a long time, I held a yearly birthday masquerade, a ball that celebrated both my birthday and end of year joy. I am reviving the tradition to enable you to play. Here's how it works:<br /><br />1. <b>Choose an Identity</b> (when commenting, choose the Name/ URL option). Your identity can be from a book or it can be someone that you create on the spot.<br />2. <b>Describe Your Costume</b> (in your comment, describe what you are wearing, how you appear, perhaps even where you are situated)<br />3. <b>Bring a Gift</b> (and describe your gift- it can be magical, impossible and so forth)<br /><br />If I know who you are in real life, I will try to guess your identity (probably by January 2nd or so). Then I will hold an Unmasking for those I have not successfully guessed.<br /><br />To get a better feel for what I am describing, you can <a href="http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-moonlit-glade-my-24th-birthday.html" target="_blank">view my masquerades of years past.</a><br /><br />---<br /><br />Now, to set the scene...<br /><br />Tonight's event is held at the Gatsby residence. The entryway is lit with eerie blue light. It opens onto a cavernous ballroom. Hourglasses as tall as a person are scattered throughout. The hourglasses contain flakes of a substance that at times looks like sand and other times looks like snow. They glitter in the eerie light and fall slowly, slowly to the other side. "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qvglWAHDak" target="_blank">Divenire</a>" by Ludovico Einaudi plays through the sound system. Small tables that appear to be made of ice crystal are arranged throughout the room. The base of the table resembles a tree trunk while the table itself is a tree that contains various levels upon which food is set. The tables are laden with delicious miniature foods. There is <a href="https://www.ohnuts.com/noapp/showImage.cfm/extra-large/18-Piece_Marzipan.jpg" target="_blank">marzipan in the shape of tiny fruits</a>, sugared crescent cookies, tiny violins made out of chocolate and fruit and nut platters skillfully carved in the shape of peacocks. Tiny vials of colored drinks are also in evidence.<br /><br />A ballet troupe has been hired. The females in each dancing couple are dressed as Daisy, beaded white floating flapper dresses skimming their knees, silver tiaras upon their heads. Their partners are the rakish Gatsbys, dressed impeccably in suits with black bowties. It becomes apparent upon closer inspection that each Daisy and Gatsby couple is slightly different. Their dancing shifts. Some partners depict their young love and dance joyfully while others form a mournful tableau that speaks of all that love can cost.<br /><br />The song shifts. We are now listening to "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDmFURFraYk" target="_blank">Allegiance to Insurgency</a>" by Pitch Hammer. The lights turn red, but they are still muted. Shadows hide in every corner. The ballet dancers, who had skilfully slipped from the room moments before, return in the guise of <a href="http://prettycleverfilms.com/files/2013/08/redhair5.jpg" target="_blank">the courtesan from "Moulin Roug</a>e" and her poet. Their dance is a battle- thrust into their poet's embrace, then pulled apart from him once more. Each time she leaves him, the courtesan-ballerina picks up another piece of flexible armor (gauntlets, breastplate) so that by the end of the dance, she is both fully clothed and stands alone.<br /><br />Throughout the evening, the lights flicker, the ballet troupe reappears and their dances change. We witness the Jedi knight with his Sith lover, proud Catherine spurning Heathcliff, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Book-Lost-Things-John-Connolly/dp/1442429348" target="_blank">young David seeking his sick mother</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Storyteller-Antonia-Michaelis/dp/1419700472" target="_blank">terrifying Abel and sweet Anna</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Name-Wind-Kingkiller-Chronicle/dp/0756404746" target="_blank">Denna and Kvothe</a>.<br /><br />The last dance is different. A mist rises up from the floor during which time large mice wearing suits, apparently from the set of "The Nutcracker," remove the ice tables and hourglasses. Trapdoors open and a field of golden sunflowers appears, pushed upward through the doors. Two children, a boy and a girl, appear to run through the field, laughing and smiling. Golden light mimicking the sun shines down upon them. <a href="https://drscdn.500px.org/photo/111467237/m%3D2048/0a16af4dc17dedd73c07276a50fee5e0" target="_blank">It looks something like this</a>. They play together.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwBafk3zbug&amp;index=10&amp;list=PLF21CE3D3AB77A000" target="_blank"> This is the music</a> that accompanies them.<br /><br />At the conclusion of this set, your hostess arrives. She is wearing a dress with a light blue bodice and lacy cap sleeves. The dress has a sweetheart neckline. Her hair is long and flows loose, spinning around her as she dances. The skirt of her dress is a tutu that spills around her in a motley of colors, red, blue, yellow, green, orange, pink and purple. She wears scuffed brown combat boots that reach slightly above her ankles.<br /><br />A fiddler appears on the scene. He begins to play "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DaRhiCKGMk" target="_blank">Fairytale</a>" by Alexander Rybak. Your hostess doesn't appear to be taking the lyrics seriously; she's just dancing because it's upbeat and joyful. Her skirts swirl around her as she kicks up her legs and laughs. The rest of the guests join in and the room is filled with unbridled giddy life-filled joy.<br /><br />Welcome to my masquerade, one and all.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2015/12/darkness-and-renewal-my-twenty-seventh.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1490813813009315460Tue, 29 Dec 2015 05:16:00 +00002015-12-29T00:16:12.002-05:00ChabadLubavitchRabbi Aron WolfRabbi WolfA Casual Encounter With Rabbi Aron Wolf Tonight Rabbi Wolf gave me and some others a ride. A grey-bearded, glasses-wearing man with a large black hat and suit coat, he ushered us into the car with a twinkle in his eye. "I never say no to Daisy," he declared. (Daisy, whose name has been changed, was the one who had gotten us the ride.) Rabbi Wolf's car has four wheel drive and was thus perfect for the sleeting, icy roads.<br /><br />I had never had an opportunity to talk with Rabbi Wolf before although I knew him as the man who sent my father out to <i>lein </i>megillah on Purim. My father was usually assigned to <i>lein </i>for women in the hospital who had just given birth as they typically felt less comfortable with young yeshiva <i>bochurim </i>(the other individuals marshaled for the cause). I tended to go along, dressed in costume, to put the women at ease.<br /><br />During the course of our conversation, it became clear that Rabbi Wolf is a very special man. I wanted to share some of his stories with you.<br /><br />He began by discussing part of what he does regarding the&nbsp;<i>meis mitzvah </i>situation in Chicago. I have heard elsewhere that funeral homes can cover 6-8 <i>meis mitzvahs</i>&nbsp;per month. These individuals are the elderly who have no remaining family, are estranged from their family or in more tragic cases, may be young people who were caught in the spiral of addiction and whose family members will not or cannot claim them. While the funeral home covers the cost of a coffin and shrouds for the deceased, Rabbi Wolf is the one who organizes a quorum of ten men, called a <i>minyan</i>, and brings them to attend the funeral so that he can say Kaddish.<br /><br />"Today the weather was terrible," he remarked. "I had a group of ten elderly individuals and the rain was sheeting down, the wind was blowing- I told them to stay in the car. I went out and then I said Kaddish in the car. Never done that before," he smiled.<br /><br />Rabbi Wolf was originally imported from Toronto, Canada to teach at Cheder Lubavitch in its early days. He taught there for several years and then realized that teaching was not the be-all and end-all of his career. He began to teach part time and then involved himself in other matters- such as creating <i>minyanim</i>&nbsp;to say kaddish for Jews who would otherwise not have that last rite performed.<br /><br />I pressed him and he began to describe some of the other things that he does. "There's a <a href="http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/fss/provdrs/senior/svcs/information_and_assessment.html.html" target="_blank">number in Chicago</a> where every time someone has a concern or complaint about the elderly, it goes to that number," he explained. "Let's say someone is saying there's an infestation in an apartment. Or let's say there's a concern someone is lacking food. It goes to that number. So we can register with the city and become the person where if the person has any known Jewish affiliation, we are the ones to go check it out."<br /><br />"And what do you find?" I asked.<br /><br />"All sorts of things," he explained. "Sometimes the original complaint, you go and you realize it's <i>gornisht</i>."<br /><br />"By which you mean it's worse than described?"<br /><br />He nods. "This Thursday, I went to an apartment. The city said there was a concern the woman did not have food. So I came with a bag of food and she threw me out, saying that she's a vegetarian and she can't eat the food. So I said, okay, but can I come in? Can I just talk to you? So she showed me inside. There's a blanket and a pillow on the floor. This is where I sleep, she says. She has a little dog; the dog cuddles up with her for warmth."<br /><br />"Wow," I say. "And now?"<br /><br />"Now, she has a bed, blankets, a couch, and the china breakers are coming in," he says happily. I'm not sure whether he's joking or serious about the last part.<br /><br />"So what happened to all her furniture?" my seatmate asks.<br /><br />"It's a sad story. She was evicted- and she has family, but they don't speak with her, haven't for fifteen years. This is a woman where, Chas V'Shalom, if she dies, she will be a <i>meis mitzvah</i>." He says it matter-of-factly, keeping his eyes on the road.<br /><br />It's the casual <i>chas v'shalom </i>that gets me. He truly believes it will be a tragedy when this surly woman who threw him and his food out of the apartment originally passes away. He doesn't take her behavior personally- not at all. He cares about her. The love radiates off of him.<br /><br />"There's a lot of <i>chesed </i>in Chicago," he declares, "no one will deny. But one area where I feel like it's a niche that hasn't been fully filled is caring for the elderly."<br /><br />"Did you always have the patience to do so?" I ask. "From the time you were a little kid?"<br /><br />"The elderly were in my life since I was a child," he answers obliquely. He's humble, not interested in bragging.<br /><br />"You also have to have the right personality to do it," my seatmate interjects. "Rivki who does Tuesdays with Rivki - that group for the elderly- she can do it but even if she gets very good substitutes, people don't want to come. It's something about her."<br /><br />"You have to listen," I say.<br /><br />"There was a man," Rabbi Wolf says, "who walked into our Center. Our Center is on Touhy. So we ask him to put on a yarmulke and he says no. Okay, no problem, we're happy you're here. But he comes again. So I sit down with him. I see something is bothering him. I ask him, 'Why won't you put on the yarmulke?' And he looks at me and says, 'Who knows whose head it has touched?' So I realized this is a very neat, very clean man. So I find him a brand-new yarmulke. We put it in a Ziploc bag in a special place where he can always find it. He doesn't wear it on the street- just when he comes in. And then he was happy to put it on his head.'<br /><br />His point is how essential it is to listen to people. To go beyond their words to their actual needs. To care.<br /><br />He mentions something about free meals his center provides which come from <a href="http://chicago.menupages.com/restaurants/chalavi/menu" target="_blank">Chalavi,</a> a local pizza parlor. His organization had a Chanukah party to which 35 people showed up. He's trying to spread the word. I'm not entirely sure as to whether this is a form of soup kitchen or just a community venture to enable others to socialize, but either way it is kind.<br /><br />"We do transportation," he continues. "Not groceries- there are other organizations that do grocery shopping and we don't want to take every person to the grocery every time they want to go shopping. But certain transportation we do, especially medical appointments. Someone calls up one day and says, can we take them to the wig shop. Now, my secretary who has been working for me for twelve years, God bless her, she asks whether this is a one-time thing or an ongoing thing. She's thinking, maybe this is a convert. The woman says it's a one-time thing. Well, my secretary continues asking questions and she finds out this woman needs a wig because she is starting chemotherapy." He pauses. "We took her to every single one of her chemotherapy appointments. She's in remission now, Baruch Hashem."<br /><br />He swings the car into a turn. "It would have been so easy to put down the phone and say, sorry, we don't do that. But she listened."<br /><br />"What happens when the City of Chicago sends you to an apartment with an infestation?" I ask, fascinated.<br /><br />"There are all sorts of programs," he answers, "discounts on exterminators, CJE."<br /><br />"But I mean, what happens if the person won't let you in?"<br /><br />"So I come back again."<br /><br />"But what if they still won't let you in?"<br /><br />"So I come back again and I try to think what they might need where if I bring it, the person will let me in."<br /><br />"He's very persistent," my seatmate says.<br /><br />We've reached our destination so I clamber out of the car. I love his nonchalance, the ease with which he explains he'll simply keep going back until he's addressed the situation. This man does his work out of love for God's people - not because you pay him. He does it because he cares. He's a man I can admire, the type of man I want my children to grow up to be. He's a man who has left me feeling a little happier, a little more hopeful, because I live in a world in which he lives as well.<br /><br />---<br /><br />If you are interested in learning more about Rabbi Wolf's work, check out the <a href="http://chicagomitzvahcampaign.org/" target="_blank">Chicago Mitzvah Campaign</a>.<br /><br />http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2015/12/a-casual-encounter-with-rabbi-aron-wolf.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-3691328579860918812Sun, 27 Dec 2015 06:48:00 +00002015-12-27T01:59:31.726-05:00GodHasidLoveRepairing the WorldTikkun OlamRepairing the World Once upon a time there was a girl utterly entwined with God.<br /><br />Her skirts swirled in wind made of His breath; her heart thudded to the beat of His heart. His commands weighed heavily upon her so that she bowed her head and bit her lip. Dejected, she made her way into the world, feeling terribly forlorn, bereft and alone.<br /><br />But in her darkest moments she caught at His cloak and wrapped it around herself, infusing herself with its glittering motes of light. In those moments, when her soul was bleak with sorrow, His hands wrapped around hers so that she felt the white-hot flame of His knuckles and nestled into the crevice left for her body. He held her close and she felt the rain fall, a steady stream of tears as He wept for her pain at the same time that He inflicted it.<br /><br />The girl sought to outrun her pain and so she pulled the rainbow behind herself, a fleeting assortment of glowing colors. Crimson brought the sun, so that dawn unfurled across the horizon, a golden sun casting yellow rays upon a rapt audience of intangible angels. Blues and indigos shadowed her cheeks, forgotten bruises that only appeared in certain light, which only incisive eyes could see. Pink tinged her lip, giving it a healthy glow, while white glowed in the orbs of eyes which sparkled with heavenly light. No matter how she ran, she could not escape the God that followed her, cocooned within her heart, carried within her bosom. She need not speak a word; it mattered not. God was with her as indelibly as her soul.<br /><br />He knew her every thought and it wounded Him. Fresh blood dripped from scraped cheeks; her nails clawed across His face. Each drop fell to earth and thudded against the rich, loamy soil, taking root and blooming as a single, beautiful rose. She fought Him and she loved Him so that the two were bound in undying struggle, as she sought to escape the one who knew her more intimately than anyone except herself.<br /><br />He sent her someone to ease her suffering.<br /><br />At first she could not see him.<br /><br />He was fit and trim and devilish, a mischievous smile twinkling in his eyes. He played at nonchalance while gambling all in a desperate attempt to win the girl who had been damaged in terrible, invisible ways.<br /><br />She repudiated him.<br /><br />Laughing, she pushed him back, but her laugh was tinged with bitterness for she was certain that she was beyond help, beyond salvation. Her tears were dark and salty but he licked them from her lashes and offered her his crumpled handkerchief. She laughed again, but this time with pleasure, and as she looked up at him with flickering faith he smiled.<br /><br />He knew he had won.<br /><br />He knew it far before she did, because she did not believe. Lost in tunnels deep under the earth, she thought it uncertain that she would ever seen sunlight again, let alone live to break through to the surface. Patiently, he extended his hand and led her through the corridors, taking her through the maze and out under the night sky. A thousand brilliant stars lit the sky and in each one of them she could see his reflection.<br /><br />That was when she knew she loved him.<br /><br />He had known it far before her, but in that moment a tear of liquid gold fell from his eye and rolled down his skin. She leaned forward to brush it away, her fingers soft against his flesh. The tear melted onto her finger, then hardened into a ring. It was a ring made out of his belief and joy and sorrow, a ring that spoke of tomorrows and yesterdays. It was the essence of him.<br /><br />She learned him as he had learned her, poring over him like an intricate text. She learned him as they slept at night, fingers skimming over muscles and bone, knotting together to form a pillow for his head. She heard his soul whispering to the water, saw how stillness and calm bound him together. She searched for his peace and found it when he slept, because then she could follow him to the idylls that encompassed his deepest visions, and visiting, learn how to create her own.<br /><br />Out of nightmares, she built ornaments, deconstructing the pieces till all that were left were tools, varied and strong. Over time, they became functional, so that instead of bits and bobs of frippery she constructed children's playthings and scattered them about their home, creating the environment that would one day welcome their child. The carpet was deep and plush, scattered with pine cones and evergreen needles. He would walk whistling through it and she would laugh to see his joy and together light would spill out of them and weave the fabric of their wold together.<br /><br />At last, they had a child.<br /><br />And in that child she saw all her hopes and dreams bound together in one, a glorious, glittering menagerie of opportunities and concerns. She was still fearful; the jackals had not wholly abandoned her. But the cruel God whose face she had struck no longer appeared to her so cruel; indeed, was it not His eyes that stared back at her in the eyes of her child? Was it not His face she saw when she pressed her lips to her child's cheek? Radiant and unconditional, beaming with affection, her child stared up at her.<br /><br />She knew that virginal blood could stain the coat of many colors. She knew the hidden face of lust, the rampant hate that could tear her child from her arms. Despite this, she loved, and loved wholeheartedly. Her skin had been sewn back together by a patient tailor, the man who stood beside her and looked down into the eyes of this coruscation, their shining babe. His face, too, appeared to her as the image of God.<br /><br />The rebuilding of her world had been a difficult undertaking. He had managed it, brick by brick, stone by stone. He had strung her together with beads and sequins and silver-tipped words and pressed her into readiness with the touch of his hands. It was her turn now.<br /><br />To become a craftsman.<br /><br />To become a conduit.<br /><br />To repair the world.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2015/12/repairing-world.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1823707380141700078Thu, 24 Dec 2015 05:38:00 +00002015-12-24T00:38:56.214-05:00BibleBible ParallelsJudahThe Transformation of Judah Much ink has been spilled over the meaning of Chapter 38 in Genesis.<br /><br />It has been suggested that Judah "went down" from his brothers- went down in status, because once the brothers saw how their actions had caused Jacob to suffer, they no longer respected the ringleader as much. He seems to have fallen out of favor, marrying a Canaanite woman, a practice that we know was frowned upon (see <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0128.htm" target="_blank">Genesis 28: 1</a>). Two of his sons die and he refuses to let the third marry. The woman to whom his son is betrothed deceives him, pretending to be a prostitute, and then chooses not to embarrass him publicly, allowing him to make the pronouncement "She is more righteous than I." From here our sages learned that it was preferable to throw oneself into a fiery furnace (the punishment for committing adultery) rather than embarrass another. While Tamar is rewarded by becoming the ancestress of the Davidic dynasty, Judah is no longer intimate with her.<br /><br />Many meanings can be gleaned from this story. The story is one of the sources for the sin of Onanism- ejaculating outside of a woman to prevent conception. There is a sense of justice being served because Tamar says הכר נא- Identify, if you please- regarding Judah's pledges, the same words the brothers used when they deceived their father and pretended the bloodied coat of many colors meant that Joseph had died. Some sages view the story as a reproach, pitting Judah and Joseph against each other. Joseph resisted the advances of Potiphar's wife, ending up in prison because of it, while Judah could not resist a prostitute's wiles.<br /><br />But I believe that the main purpose of this story, one that has perhaps been overlooked- or at least, has not come up somewhere I have read- is to provide the impetus and catalyst for the tremendous change in Judah.<br /><br />Think about it: According to rabbinic tradition, Judah is the one who originally determines that Joseph ought to die. He does change his mind, saying:<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>כו</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה, אֶל-אֶחָיו:&nbsp; מַה-בֶּצַע, כִּי נַהֲרֹג אֶת-אָחִינוּ, וְכִסִּינוּ, אֶת-דָּמוֹ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>26</b>&nbsp;And Judah said unto his brethren: 'What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood?</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="27"></a><b>כז</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;לְכוּ וְנִמְכְּרֶנּוּ לַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים, וְיָדֵנוּ אַל-תְּהִי-בוֹ, כִּי-אָחִינוּ בְשָׂרֵנוּ, הוּא; וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, אֶחָיו.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>27</b>&nbsp;Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother, our flesh.' And his brethren hearkened unto him.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Judah's action has far-reaching consequences. Due to his words, Joseph is sold and Jacob is left bereft, led to believe that his son has been torn apart by a wild animal.<br /><br />Then Judah sets off on his own. It is possible that he has fallen out of favor with the brothers. He takes a wife from a despised nation which may indicate his low status- or a rebellion against his father. He then has three sons. He marries his first son off, but then he dies. He marries the second son off to the same woman, but then that son dies as well. When it comes to the third son, he cannot bear to further the alliance. He claims that Tamar must wait till his son is grown but in truth he never plans to allow the two to wed.<br /><br />Consider what has happened here. Judah is learning, in the most painful way possible, exactly what it is <i>to lose a son</i>. He loses not one son but two -and he cannot bear to let the third one go. He is then deceived by the very woman he views as responsible for the death of his sons- and must publicly confess that he is the one who impregnated her. It is a very powerful and effective lesson in empathy for his father. First, he learns what it is to suffer the death of a child. And then, he discovers what it is like to be deceived by a woman, believing her to be one individual (a prostitute) and then discovering her to be another (his daughter-in-law, Tamar). This exactly parallels what happened with Jacob, who weds the veiled Leah believing she was Rachel.<br /><br />The root of the enmity between Leah's children and Rachel's children all stems from this moment. Leah was the שנואה, the hated woman. God gave her children first, opening her womb. Leah believed that through bearing these children, Jacob would come to love her. But instead, Jacob perversely insisted upon loving Rachel. It is possible that Judah, clearly a strong, decisive individual, hated Joseph not only for being the favored child, the one in the coat of many colors, the one who had dreams that set him above the other brothers- but also because of who he was, the child of Rachel, his own mother's rival. Perhaps (although there is no textual proof for this) Judah felt frustrated by his father, wondering how he could have caused this all to happen. Had he only <i>made sure </i>that the woman he was marrying was the right one, this enmity would never have been forged and Judah's mother would not have been so unhappy. Now Judah understands how it is possible to make such a mistake. More than that, the text is explicit that Judah is no longer intimate with Tamar. Having had his one mistaken encounter with her, he saves her from the pyre and sets her aside. Jacob remains with Leah, continuing his conjugal relations with her- but emotionally, on some level, he too sets her aside. Does Judah not remain intimate with Tamar because she had originally been promised to his son? Or is there something fundamentally impossible about intimacy that begins shrouded in deception? If the latter...Judah has begun to understand his father. He realizes now that the love Jacob felt for Rachel and for her children was not intended as a slap in the face to his mother, although that may well have been how it was perceived. Perhaps, on some level, it was simply impossible for Jacob to emotionally connect with the woman who deceived him.<br /><br />It is within this context that Judah's later actions make sense. He and the other brothers return to Jacob and inform him that the viceroy has demanded that Benjamin travels to Egypt. Jacob is understandably distressed, claiming that Joseph is gone and Simeon is imprisoned and now Benjamin, too, runs the risk of running afoul of evil chance or deliberate harm. Reuben's response to this is to threaten the death of his own two children:<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>לז</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיֹּאמֶר רְאוּבֵן, אֶל-אָבִיו לֵאמֹר, אֶת-שְׁנֵי בָנַי תָּמִית, אִם-לֹא אֲבִיאֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ; תְּנָה אֹתוֹ עַל-יָדִי, וַאֲנִי אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ אֵלֶיךָ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>37</b>&nbsp;And Reuben spoke unto his father, saying: 'Thou shalt slay my two sons, if I bring him not to thee; deliver him into my hand, and I will bring him back to thee.'</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Reuben is overwhelmed by guilt. He had intended to save Joseph and failed. Therefore he makes this brash promise, saying that the lives of &nbsp;his two children can act as sureties for Benjamin.<br /><br />But Judah has actually had two children die. He knows that his brother is acting foolishly- cannot, does not understand the horror of the death of a child. The last thing Jacob would want would be the deaths of two more children should his beloved son Benjamin not come home.<br /><br />Therefore, Judah intervenes.<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ח</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה אֶל-יִשְׂרָאֵל אָבִיו, שִׁלְחָה הַנַּעַר אִתִּי--וְנָקוּמָה וְנֵלֵכָה; וְנִחְיֶה וְלֹא נָמוּת, גַּם-אֲנַחְנוּ גַם-אַתָּה גַּם-טַפֵּנוּ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>8</b>&nbsp;And Judah said unto Israel his father: 'Send the lad with me, and we will arise and go, that we may live, and not die, both we, and thou, and also our little ones.</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="9"></a><b>ט</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;אָנֹכִי, אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ--מִיָּדִי, תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ:&nbsp; אִם-לֹא הֲבִיאֹתִיו אֵלֶיךָ וְהִצַּגְתִּיו לְפָנֶיךָ, וְחָטָאתִי לְךָ כָּל-הַיָּמִים.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>9</b>&nbsp;I will be surety for him; of my hand shalt thou require him; if I bring him not unto thee, and set him before thee, then let me bear the blame for ever.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Why would Jacob trust Judah over Reuben?<br /><br />Because Judah knows what it is to have a child die. Indeed, he knows what it is to have <i>two </i>children die. He will truly be a surety for Jacob- because he has changed. He understands the pain that his father went through, the loss of his beloved son. Judah will ensure this does not happen again.<br /><br />And indeed, in arguably his finest moment, Judah steps forward in פרשת ויגש and presents a passionate plea, detailing the story of Jacob's suffering on a deep level. He ends off with a wrenching statement:<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26.4px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>לד</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;כִּי-אֵיךְ אֶעֱלֶה אֶל-אָבִי, וְהַנַּעַר אֵינֶנּוּ אִתִּי:&nbsp; פֶּן אֶרְאֶה בָרָע, אֲשֶׁר יִמְצָא אֶת-אָבִי.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19.2px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>34</b>&nbsp;For how shall I go up to my father, if the lad be not with me? lest I look upon the evil that shall come on my father.'</td></tr></tbody></table>The Judah who heretofore was all about calculations- considering whether more profit could be had by slaying his brother or selling him- now finds it impossible to consider looking upon the evil אשר ימצא את אבי- that will find my father. Earlier, he did not hesitate, did not consider the impact that slaying or selling the boy would have upon Jacob- only Reuben considered that. But now, weathered by suffering, and perhaps less judgmental of his father's actions and coldness towards Leah, he is deeply affected. He would rather stay a slave and allow Benjamin, a son of Rachel, to go free.<br /><br />In this moment, he has changed himself completely. Judah is standing there as surety because he has taken the place of Reuben, the firstborn. Reuben illogically threatened the deaths of his sons should Benjamin not return, thereby demonstrating that he does not comprehend Jacob's anguish. But Judah does. That is why he stands there defending a son of Rachel, a child of the person responsible- in his mind- for monopolizing his father's love. Except that he has now realized it wasn't Rachel who held the monopoly- it was Leah who unfortunately lost the opportunity to be loved equally when she chose to participate in deception. Love that has its roots in deception cannot flourish, and this is something that Judah now understands. He has lived it. It has changed him.<br /><br />The bizarre interlude in Judah's life inter-spliced with the Joseph story now no longer seems so bizarre. It is there to show us what caused the tremendous change between the Judah that was and the Judah that came to be.<br /><br />---<br />This idea inspired in part by Mr. Chaim Kohanchi's 'Ner Chaim' and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks' 'Covenant and Conversation'http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-transformation-of-judah.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-7909441143196645619Sun, 20 Sep 2015 03:04:00 +00002015-09-20T00:19:46.925-04:00Burning BushHeroismIndividualLeadershipManagementManagingMosesShimon bar YochaiHeroism vs. LeadershipThe concept of leadership is very popular at the moment.<br /><br />It's a buzzword. Nearly every program and every school seeks to teach leadership skills and students proudly boast on their resumes that they are leaders. This despite the fact that true leadership is learned over time, it is earned, and it comes from people who choose to regard you as leader, not simply because you were appointed to run an organization.<br /><br />Moreover, not all people are fit to be leaders, nor should this be their main goal. Our society would have us think that it is ignoble to follow; I believe this thinking is flawed.<br /><br />So what is it that people can strive to obtain if not leadership?<br /><br />Heroism.<br /><br />Every man can be a hero because one can act the hero in one's own life. Heroism is demonstrated when one's life is a testament to one's ideals. Heroism can be performed on large scale or small, and can be demonstrated by the six-year-old and the eighty-year-old. Heroism is to choose rightly, correctly, with personal integrity, at a time when the stakes are high and it is difficult to do so. Heroism can be performed at the individual level.<br /><br />Pop culture is currently obsessed with super<i>heroes. </i>Why are they deemed heroes as opposed to leaders? Because they are typically vigilantes, usually working outside of a structure (The Avengers notwithstanding). The hero is the one who both flaunts and flouts the rules and does so for the good of overarching society. Yet it is rare that this society is able or willing to actually allow the superhero to <i>lead</i>. That falls to other men, men who can work within the structures and strictures of society.<br /><br />Leadership and heroism are different. Leadership is sustained, constant, unending, exhausting. It requires the ability to work with people, manage people, placate, appease, command and cajole people. By its very nature, it involves others- and others who may not even want to be involved in the enterprise.<br /><br />Heroism, in contrast, <i>can </i>be all those things but often isn't. It is perhaps more commonly found in uncharacteristic acts (driven by extraordinary situations) or alternatively, in the small, everyday decisions that one makes. The decision to stay home and watch the children so that your spouse can attend an event. The decision to say something kind to an ailing, if irritating, person. Heroism takes energy, but it's a different kind of energy. Heroism can exist on the individual level- one can be a hero in everyday life without being a leader of men.<br /><br />The scene with Moses at the Burning Bush is often read as that of a man who is wary and unwilling to accept the mantle of leadership. And I think there's an element of truth to that. But I think there is often a misread in the way this is taught. Moses was a <i>hero </i>who was totally capable of heroic action on the individual level. His concern had to do with being made a <i>leader</i>- someone who would have to oversee people and quite literally lead them somewhere they did not want to be led. Managing people is <i>hard.&nbsp;</i><br /><i><br /></i>Moses proved his heroism on three separate occasions. First, he protected a slave from an Egyptian overseer. Second, he sought to break up a fight between two Hebrews. And third, he protected Midianite shepherdesses from the unwanted heckling and abuse of Midianite shepherds. Clearly, this was a man who had no problem intervening when the situation warranted it. However, in all of these situations, he was acting on an individual level, doing something that was right and correct and which he was fully capable of doing on his own. In these situations, perhaps he led by example, but he did not <i>lead </i>a people. He was not involved in the mess of politics, hurt feelings, indignation, fear of change and frustration with standards of excellence that leading a nation entails.<br /><br />Indeed, after fleeing to Midian, Moses took on a life of solitude. He spent his time shepherding the flock, going where they would go, staring out into great desert vistas. He was familiar with nature. He brooded. He thought. Overall, he <i>saw</i>. The Burning Bush was a test. The first thing Moses says is that he will turn aside to "see this great sight, why this Bush is not burnt." Moses is no cynic, jaded and tired by life. He could be. He's a runaway, a refugee. He could say that no good deed goes unpunished and lament his life. He could look at a burning bush with dull eyes, determine it a mirage or something not worth investigating, and continue on his path. But he does not do these things. Because Moses, a man who communes with nature, an introspective, thoughtful man, <i>sees.&nbsp;</i><br /><i><br /></i>And upon seeing, he is tasked with a vast and impossible mission. <i>You are no longer to act the hero alone</i>, God says him. <i>Now, you must lead. </i>Moses is not afraid of decisive, important, heroic action on an individual level. But he is very afraid of leading a people. All of his arguments reflect this. He begins by saying, "Who am I?" - Who am I to be given this very public job? I don't have the right qualifications. I don't know <i>how </i>to lead. He continues by relating objections that the nation will raise, certain that they will inquire as to what God's name is, will not believe his fantastical claim, and will not be persuaded by him because he is כבד פה which at least some interpret as not a gifted orator.<br /><br />If you pick apart Moses' arguments, what you notice is that his concern is with the communal, national implications of this job. You want me to go as a vigilante, picking off men one by one in heroic, one-strike efforts? That I can do. But this- taking a teeming mass of people and leading them out of Egypt to an uncertain future? I don't have the skills for it. You've got the wrong man. Send someone else.<br /><br />If you view Moses' fear as the fear of any man who has been forced to transform from a productive employee at the individual level to someone tasked with management responsibilities, other decisions he makes become clearer. For example, his seeming impatience with the people likely stems from a lack of true understanding of them. He looks at them through the eyes of one for whom life is utterly clear, the eyes of a hero- this is correct, this is incorrect- how can you not <i>see? </i>How can you be so <i>blind</i>? When he is able, he takes advice from others more qualified than himself, such as Jethro. At other times, he wishes to give up, declaring that he cannot bear this heavy burden, that the nation has sucked him dry.<br /><br />And of course, there is Moses' great flaw - the incident at the rock. At least one commentary reads that scene and informs us that hitting the rock was not the problem. The problem was that Moses cried, "Listen up, you rebels!" Since he persisted in calling the nation rebels- מורדים- he was not fit to continue to lead them to the next stage of their journey. He was looking at them with eyes that could not be sufficiently compassionate. And<a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabbath/shabbath_33.html#PARTb" target="_blank"> like ר שמעון בר יוחאי, who had to learn not to burn people with his eyes</a>, Moses must learn that sometimes developing others is more important than the destination.<br /><br />All people who begin their work roles as productive individuals struggle when they are given a group of other individuals to manage. They are used to impossibly high standards which they themselves set, standards to which they expect the group to adhere. They become frustrated and irritated- both with themselves and the group- when these standards are not met. Two options appear. The first is to develop the group and the talents of the individuals within the group, even though this may mean a slower pace. The second is to charge full-tilt to reach the end goal, often with the productive individual doing the bulk of the work. The ostensible goal of Moses leading the Israelites is to get them to the Promised Land. This task is certainly made easier (and quicker) without constant complaining and squabbling. However, in his concern to get the Israelites to Israel, Moses misunderstands the true goal. The people need to reach their full potential, to be developed as much as they can be in fear and love of God. Reaching the Promised Land is the secondary goal. If Moses sees the nation's shortcomings- their rebelliousness- and cannot discover and develop their potential, does not respond with love in that moment, he is not succeeding in his most important work. God sees this and punishes him with the natural consequence- you may not enter the Promised Land. You need to think instead about the work that I am giving you to accomplish here in the wilderness. Develop these people. Help them to become the people they can be. I am relying on you...http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2015/09/heroism-vs-leadership.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-7531769768174354830Tue, 26 May 2015 05:05:00 +00002015-05-26T01:10:10.800-04:00boazfreundelrabbishavuotyael zieglerZieglerBeing A Rabbi (And Role Model) I've been struggling to make sense of the Rabbi Freundel affair and thus far, have been failing. The way I process is to attempt to make meaning when I am confronted by something difficult and foreign to me. I have been speaking to several people I respect in an attempt to make meaning from this situation, and the following are assorted thoughts I've come up with on the way.<br /><br />The main difficulty I have with Rabbi Freundel's behavior is that it was meticulous and planned out. I absolutely understand the desire to behave in ways which might be considered deviant, especially when it comes to sexual pleasure. I even understand that such desires or acting on such desires might be considered falling prey to an addiction. But in my mind, I envision &nbsp;(perhaps due to romanticizing?) a struggle with addiction. I imagine a mighty struggle where someone might give in one day but would attempt to shackle themselves in order to attempt to refrain the next day, much as Ulysses ensured that he was tied to the mast with ropes so that he would not be ensnared by the siren song of the Lorelei. I understand someone who is struggling but failing. I don't understand someone who does not struggle at all. To me, for someone to meticulously procure multiple instruments that clandestinely record others, then position them, record individuals, gather data and then store the data (again, labeled and recorded and filed away in an organized system) does not bespeak a struggle. Then again, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the fact that the man erred 152 times actually means he <i>wanted </i>to err 600 times. But this is my point of conflict. I do not see the struggle, and because I do not see it, I find it difficult to respect the man.<br /><br />If you struggle and fall, I respect you. If you do not struggle, I don't understand you. I cannot imagine any individual who could simply accept in themselves an ability to hurt other people - unless they truly lack empathy, such as the clinical sociopath. The stories people tell about Rabbi Freundel do not suggest this; hence, I am stuck.<br /><br />The only takeaway that I can find thus far has to do with the role of rabbi.<br /><br />Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff records the following in his book <i>The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Volume I</i>, page 193<i>:</i><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b><i>5.07 </i>The Role of the Rabbi</b>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq"><i>Related by the Rav in his lecture entitled "Rashi on Aseret HaDibrot" at the RCA Annual Convention, June 30, 1970</i>. &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Reb Meir Berlin [1880-1949; a relative of the Rav] once told me that he asked his grandfather Rabbi Yehiel Michal Epstein [1829-1908], the author of the <i>Arukh ha-Shulkhan</i>, what was the role of the rabbi. He answered, to decide questions of Jewish law [posek shealot]. Reb Meir Berlin asked the same question of my grandfather Reb Chaim. He said that for guidance in Jewish law, one may go to a dayyan [rabbinical judge]. <span style="background-color: yellow;">However, the main role of the rabbi is to help the needy, protect the persecuted, defend the widows, and sustain orphans. In a word, it is acts of loving-kindness [gemilat hasadim].</span>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The truth is that the acts of Reb Chaim in these areas were fantastic. Stories abound about the illegitimate children whom he adopted, provided for, and sent to heder. You all know how he helped the Bundist revolutionary on Yom Kippur. He saved his life.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">This was the most important attribute inscribed on his tombstone, namely, that he was a master of loving-kindness, a rav ha-hesed.&nbsp;</blockquote>Rabbi Freundel took disenfranchised individuals (converts) and betrayed their trust. He is thus the antithesis of a rabbi. We must look for rabbis who reach out in love towards every Jew; they are the ones who deserve the title. Individuals who are extremely erudite should be considered scholars- or perhaps a dayan- but not a rabbi.<br /><br />This comes to mind during this Shavuot season as Boaz is the example of someone who did <i>not </i>take advantage of a woman who literally threw herself at him. She came and lay at his feet in a very sexually suggestive manner. He treats her properly and formally redeems her- even offering the closer redeemer the opportunity to marry her. He views her, not as an object or as his property or even as someone sexually exciting whose advances he ought to accept, but as a person. Yael Ziegler writes in her book <i>Ruth </i>about how Boaz acts in total contrast to other individuals during the time of the <i>shoftim </i>(judges) who do treat individuals as property (Yiftach, Pilegesh B'Givah, the way Binyamin subsequently finds wives for themselves). He is heroic precisely because of how he defies the trend.<br /><br />To be a rabbi means to love fellow Jews. It means to feel for them when the halakha forces you to do things which the congregant finds difficult (the way Rabbi Soloveitchik was torn up about the kohen who couldn't marry the convert). It means to care. And if you care the way you should, you cannot deliberately harm.<br /><br />One of the most ironic things which is said about Yirmiyahu appears in 38:4-<br /><span style="background-color: white; font-family: David; font-size: 26.3999996185303px; text-align: right;">כִּי הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה, אֵינֶנּוּ דֹרֵשׁ לְשָׁלוֹם לָעָם הַזֶּה--כִּי אִם-לְרָעָה.</span><br /><br />The man is expending his every breath to attempt to save his brethren from hunger, death and fire, but they are sure that he only wants evil for them. I can't even imagine how frustrated Yirmiyahu must have felt, how misunderstood.<br /><br />That is an example of someone who is believed to be harming others when he truly wants their good. It eats him up inside.<br /><br />But here we have a man who harmed others while giving the impression that he wanted good for them. And I just don't understand how he was able to rationalize it to himself. I don't understand what seems to be the lack of struggle. I wish he would speak publicly about his struggle- if there was one. At least then those of us who want to believe that humanity is innately good- flawed, sometimes terribly flawed- but good, would have a case to make.<br /><br />But right now I can't even make the case.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2015/05/being-rabbi-and-role-model.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-5351544411404318041Sun, 29 Mar 2015 04:27:00 +00002015-03-29T00:41:44.406-04:00EducationJewish EducationA Different Model of Jewish Education"And why is it" asked Rabbi Yaakov Glasser, "that such a big deal is made of the Mishkan? There will never be a Mishkan again! There will be a Bais Hamikdash- but no Mishkan."<br /><br />He looked around the audience of riveted teens and proceeded to reveal the answer.<br /><br />"The Mishkan," he explained, "is like camp. It's a place to share experiences, to buoy one another up and to help each other out. It's a place where people encounter their fears, grow and come out changed."<br /><br />So he didn't say it in exactly those words; I'm translating from teen-speak. In essence, though, that was what he was saying, and it made something click in my mind.<br /><br />We've set up a false dichotomy in the Jewish world of experiential education vs. formal education. Formal education, we've admitted, must of necessity be boring. But NCSY, Bnei Akiva and camp will provide the experiential education to keep kids connected. These initiatives are so important that some parents will even choose providing their children with a Jewish camp experience over Jewish day school and grandparents will righteously argue that they should be able to use their money to send kids to camp even if those same kids are on scholarships at their respective day schools.<br /><br />But I'd like to consider the first part of the assumption- namely, that formal education must be boring.<br /><br />Why exactly is formal education boring?<br /><br />Well, a lot of it has to do with how we're teaching. There are endless classes for young Jewish teens to sit through, Judaic and otherwise. In the morning, you've got Chumash (Bible), Navi (Prophets), Gemara (Talmud) and possibly a Jewish Philosophy or Fundamentals of Judaism class. And that's not including time for prayer and all the other classes (in secular subjects).<br /><br />Some schools have adopted a block schedule, which means that students aren't experiencing these classes every day, or at the very least are not experiencing them in the exact same order. That's definitely a start- but I would argue it doesn't go far enough.<br /><br />That brings us to 21st century skills. Using technology in the classroom is surely the answer. With technology, we can make our classes less boring, more interesting and use the very same devices children are already familiar with to get them to learn. This is a great idea and it definitely can work- but once again, I would argue it doesn't go far enough.<br /><br />Think about it. When we were in the desert, our entire lives revolved around the Mishkan, our living model of Har Sinai. Experiences were the order of the day. Once in Israel, the same rules applied- our Jewish lives were meant to be a lived experience of holiness, the key word being experience. Bringing an animal to be slaughtered, making pilgrimage to the Temple, blowing (or hearing) Shofar, tithing, setting aside corners of the field for the poor and hungry- all of these were things you <i>did</i>. In creating a culture of textual supremacy, it is possible to lose sight of this religion which was meant to be lived and experienced in favor of learning another blatt Gemara or understanding another pasuk.<br /><br />So what <i>should </i>we be doing?<br /><br />The answer came to me as I read about Finland's decision to move towards <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/03/26/no-finlands-schools-arent-giving-up-traditional-subjects-heres-what-the-reforms-will-really-do/" target="_blank">phenomenon-based learning</a> as opposed to subject-based learning. It was solidified as I read about the initiative at the <a href="http://www.playmaker.org/" target="_blank">Playmaker school</a> where students <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/6th-graders-develop-video-game-mini-businesses-class-project/" target="_blank">created video games from scratch</a>, an initiative which forced them to learn to code, manage or produce as members of a group, build a business and advertise. And of course there's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maker_culture" target="_blank">maker culture</a> and makerspaces cropping up all over the place.<br /><br />The goal of education should be to meet students where they are and then build them up from there. Education should be relevant and should be able to demonstrate to students why what they are learning is valuable and will serve them well in today's world. It should be multidisciplinary. It should be creative. And it should involve play, because all learning is really exploration and play <i>is </i>exploration.<br /><br />We should be redesigning our Jewish schools to feature project-based and phenomenon-based learning. Information should be taught topically and should have a clear goal. If students are learning about the laws of tallit, tefillin and tzitzit, the end result should be to actually <i>make </i>these objects, ideally from scratch. Students should learn how to construct and blow a shofar, <i>safrut </i>(the ability to write Hebrew properly in Torah and other holy scrolls). Exams should be practical i.e. students should have to construct a Shabbos meal and then, sitting at the table, demonstrate the <i>melachot </i>that are forbidden. Just learning how to run a kosher kitchen (and how to kasher various objects and items) could take a year. Send students out with Chabad teams to use blowtorches to assist in kashering people's kitchens, for instance!<br /><br />Once information is studied topically, you no longer have the incredibly long school day that drains so many students. This is because there's no need for each subject to be a set number of minutes taking up its own period- rather, a chunk of time will end up covering a diverse array of Jewish subjects. Every unit begins with an overall question and the question should be framed like so: "I wonder how a sofer writes a kosher Torah scroll." Or "I wonder how to run a kosher kitchen." Or "I wonder which vessels conduct purity and impurity" (this would be a great excuse for woodshop and pottery in school, aside from which you could built shtenders, besamim holders, coffins and all sorts of other useful items and sell them). Then, students have to learn through relevant sources- possibly prepared by teachers or guided by teachers- beginning with the Chumash, then going to the Mishna, then the Talmud, then the Shulchan Aruch and beyond. Masters in the field should be brought in as consultants. Along the way, students can work on constructing whatever it is they hope to construct/ build in order to see what they do know as opposed to don't know- their teachers serving as experienced guides rather than frontal instructors and lecturers.<br /><br />You may be concerned that not everything Judaism teaches fits neatly within a project framework. For example, it may be important to teach about Maimonides' 13 principles, and there isn't exactly a construction for that topic. But this is where phenomenon-based learning comes in. The 13 principles constitute a belief system, and this could be a great opportunity to link this lesson to beliefs in general (which would definitely integrate well with history and Jewish history). There are several different angles that one could take. One could be the exercise in determining at what point in Jewish history tenets and principles became important. Another would be to talk about the principles and values by which the student lives their life and have them go on a treasure hunt to determine where they get their principles from- a search for the source. Is it their parents? Their friends? And where do <i>those </i>individuals get their principles from? In what ways do these principles reflect or differ from overall society values? A third would be to talk about Maimonides as an individual and the ways in which he reflects other individuals who were unique during their time- Galileo, etc.<br /><br />Much of Navi (Prophets) is political but students rarely learn it that way. If you link Prophets to the politics that occur when the prophet is prophesying, it can either work well in concert with a history curriculum, a media curriculum or it can become a discussion about ethics, values and how to live. If the latter, cue Randy Pausch's<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Last-Lecture-Randy-Pausch/dp/1401323251/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427601209&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=last+lecture+pausch" target="_blank"> <i>Last Lecture</i></a>&nbsp; and Paulo Coelho's<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Alchemist-Paulo-Coelho/dp/0062315005/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427601269&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+alchemist" target="_blank"> </a><i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Alchemist-Paulo-Coelho/dp/0062315005/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1427601269&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+alchemist" target="_blank">The Alchemist</a>. </i>In an ideal world, English Lit, History (and Jewish History), Navi and Chumash departments would all work together on creating an integrated curriculum.<br /><br />I also think it would be instructive to take a hotly contested topic and consider the comparisons and analogies often made. For example, most students are taught to be Zionistic but are usually only taught one narrative. They are taught to dismiss allegations of apartheid, land grabbing and acting like Hitler as ludicrous and misguided. But often they are only taught to do this because other people who they trust have told them that these allegations are incorrect or misguided. I think it would be very interesting to lead an advanced class that would not only examine the Israeli/ Palestine narratives but would also examine the rhetoric used in the media when it comes to this subject. This class, for instance, should do a thorough study of South Africa and apartheid (the books read in this class would work for AP English!). It should consider various land grabs made across different countries and cultures. It should allow for fearless inquiry and open questions, even those that make instructors uncomfortable.<br /><br />Many lament <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html?_r=0" target="_blank">the culture of victimization that has led to ridiculous concessions at college campuses</a> across America. Trigger warnings must appear on all sorts of material and teachers are afraid to teach. It seems to me that in order to create students who think rather than spout opinions based on their feelings, we have to teach students to consider a topic from all angles, including uncomfortable ones. Enter source-based, phenomenon-based learning. You don't just dismiss the comparison to apartheid because it bothers you; you actually learn about apartheid, compare it to what's happening in Israel and come to a conclusion. You don't subscribe to political beliefs or tenets simply because it's popular; you consider all sides of the matter (even- or especially- on hotly contested issues such as LGBTQ, where most seem to think with their hearts instead of their minds). It's tempting to cast everyone who disagrees with you as a dark villain, but it's probably not accurate. Let's teach the children to make room for multiple ideas and to check the sources before coming to conclusions.<br /><br />What I'm describing would take time as it would be a radical remodeling of education today. Interdisciplinary learning that leads to either creation or discussion which considers a matter from all sides, including the ones which are unsettling, is a difficult enterprise. But the rewards could be breathtaking. Imagine a shorter school day, one in which students were invested because they knew that everything they were learning was something that could become part of their lived experience. The skills (reading, writing, learning how to think critically) would be taught via the inquiry-based, constructivist, phenomenon-based, creation-based model. Here's what a possible day would look like:<br /><br /><ul><li>Tefillah</li><li>Breakfast</li><li>Woodshop/ Pottery where we build items and vessels and learn about how they can conduct impurity via sources from Chumash, Mishna and Talmud. We also try to construct items as they existed way back when, including making a working Tanur, where we will bake challot (and do hafrashat challah). (<b>This hits upon Chumash, Mishna, Talmud and Home Ec)</b>.</li><li>Israel/ Media workshop. We are reading '<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Age-Iron-J-M-Coetzee/dp/0140275657" target="_blank">Age of Iron'</a> by J.M. Coetzee and comparing this reflection on apartheid to historical sources and different impressions (by Palestinians vs. Israelis) on what is going on in Israel today. (<b>This hits upon Media, History and English).&nbsp;</b></li><li>LUNCH</li><li>Business Model workshop- Students create businesses (either real ones or set up a fake Shark Tank atmosphere where people have to create business models and bring it to moguls in the classroom) in which they must bring math and science skills to bear. You could assign the business moguls roles - for example, one of them could have made all their money in oil. As part of this, assign them to learn and teach the class about the issues with oil right now (fracking, pipelines). Another one is a doctor and you use them to be the conduit to teach biology. Obviously, the students creating the businesses have to bring statistics, salesmanship and advertising to bear, including informative graphs and visual presentations. (<b>This hits upon Science, Math, Public Speaking etc)&nbsp;</b></li><li>Clubs/ Electives</li><li>SCHOOL ENDS</li><li>Sports/ Arts&nbsp;</li></ul><br />It is possible that in the younger grades we would still need basic foundational classes in reading, writing, Hebrew language, learning Rashi script/ Aramaic etc. But once foundations were achieved, the ideal would be to teach all these skills within broader relevant topics as opposed to on their own.<br /><br />I'm still working on refining these ideas and I know I haven't hit on all the potential problems. A few that I see include:<br /><br /><ul><li>How would we hire teachers to fit this model and what would the teacher's role look like? Is a teacher someone meant to know a lot about a variety of subjects, or would several different teachers work together to construct each unit or lesson?</li><li>How would this be financially possible/ can this be supported equitably across wealthy and less affluent communities?</li><li>How would we assess what and whether the student has learned the topic?&nbsp;</li><li>How can we determine rigor in such classes?&nbsp;</li><li>Is it possible that there are certain concepts that simply <i>can't </i>be taught according to this model, and if so, do we build in a period of time for straight-up lecturing?&nbsp;</li><li>If the USA keeps a standardized test model such as the SATs or ACTs, would students be adequately prepared to succeed?&nbsp;</li></ul><br />I think with the right team, however, we would be able to expand upon this vision, work out the kinks, and create a school that interested students, taught them useful information and made Judaism the lived experience it ought to be.<br /><br />Let me know what you think.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-different-model-of-jewish-education.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-6795154365812443077Thu, 27 Nov 2014 19:51:00 +00002014-11-27T15:09:34.660-05:00Majesty and HumilityReuven ZieglerSoloveitchikZieglerBook Review: Majesty and Humility by Rav Reuven Ziegler<i>Disclaimer: I received a free review copy of this book.</i><br /><br />It's taken me nearly three years to read a book.<br /><br />I typically read five books a week, so this is pretty unusual. The book in question is special. It's like fine wine. One is meant to sip at it, consider the flavor, delicately swish it from side to side in one's mouth. It's not like soda, where you swig it back and chug it down. No, it's something that's meant to be considered, enjoyed, <i>absorbed.&nbsp;</i><br /><i><br /></i>The book is entitled <i><a href="http://www.urimpublications.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&amp;Store_Code=UP&amp;Product_Code=Majesty" target="_blank">Majesty and Humility: The Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik</a> </i>and is written by Rabbi Reuven Ziegler.<br /><br />Those of you who are used to the TAC/SOY Seforim Sale may be thinking: "Do we really &nbsp;need another Rav book?" The subject of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik is exhaustively covered from all angles within the Modern Orthodox world. We know about important moments in his life, have copies of his shiurim, written works published during his lifetime and afterwards, and even have insights provided by his <i>shamashim</i>. So what can this book provide that the others don't?<br /><br />The answer is: a lot.<br /><br />That's because <i>Majesty and Humility </i>is a different kind of Rav book. It's a book that aims to make sense of the Rav's overarching philosophy and to trace his thought and its development across all of his works. It seeks to either resolve contradictions or assert that the Rav's thinking changed over time when it seems like certain ideas may not mesh with one another. While those of us who read the Rav in school are generally familiar with <i>Halakhic Man </i>and <i>The Lonely Man of Faith, </i>unless one has put in a great deal of effort and research, one is probably not aware of the scope and breadth of all the Rav's works and the thought that binds them together. Unlike the layperson, Ziegler is eminently aware of the scope and breadth of the Rav's works. His extremely well-researched book is filled with footnotes and references to other works, and each segment ends with a helpful section called "For Further Reference" that elaborates upon ideas mentioned in that section.<br /><br />I see a lot of possible uses for <i>Majesty and Humility</i>. Any teacher who is going to incorporate the Rav's writings into class ought to own a copy. Higher-level high school classes and college classes ought to use this as a companion to the Rav's written works. One can focus on creating a year-long (or longer) class utilizing the different chapters of this book or alternatively, simply take one section and create a semester to year-long offering.<br /><br />Ziegler breaks up the book into the following segments:<br /><br /><ul><li>An &nbsp;overall introduction</li><li>The Rav's conception of thought, feeling and action (physical experiences in this world and <i>mitzvot</i>)</li><li>The Rav's view of religion in the modern world&nbsp;</li><li>The Rav's understanding of ways in which man reaches out to God (roles of family, prayer, repentance, suffering)&nbsp;</li><li>The Rav's understanding of Jewish history and destiny (the Holocaust, State of Israel, Jewish identity)</li><li>The Rav's viewpoint on the significance of and parameters of Halakha (halakhic man, subjectivity and objectivity in halakha, how man finds God and cleaves to Him via the halakha)</li><li>A review of the major points and themes brought out in earlier chapters</li></ul><div>I found this format to be extremely clear and very valuable as a resource should I wish to go back and incorporate some of these topics within my classes.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>As an English major, I enjoyed this book for its usage of critical techniques. When reading <i>Wuthering Heights, </i>one strives to understand Emily Bronte within her historical context, as a proponent of the gothic, and to look at the ways that her writing advanced the genre and literature in general. One also seeks to compare Bronte to her contemporaries to better understand both her writing and her influence. Ziegler does this with Rabbi Soloveitchik. One of the sections I most enjoyed in the book compared Rav Kook's thought to Rabbi Soloveitchik's thought. Here's one of the takeaways:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>Two Conceptions of Human Nature</b>&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Rav Kook's and Rav Soloveitchik's understandings of repentance, with all their differences, are clearly predicated on divergent views of the nature of man.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">For Rav Kook, the categories of sin and repentance apply not to man in relation to God, but to man in relation to himself: one sins against one's "self" and returns to one's "self."&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">This, in turn, is based on the idea of the God-man unity in the inner self, symbolized by the perpetual inner <i>teshuvah </i>of the soul. In Rav Kook's thought, everything begins and ends with God. Repentance means revealing the divine within man and ideally, uniting it with divinity in its fullness.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Rav Kook's is thus an encouraging and uplifting approach. Man is essentially good and holy, and must merely remove the impediments in order to allow himself to join the soul of the world in its upward movement.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Rav Soloveitchik believes that God is God and man is man, and there is a chasm between them; man must create himself if he wants to draw closer to God. Man begins as a formless mass and must either shape himself actively or be shaped passively by circumstances. He has great potential, but must work hard to actualize it.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The difference between their approaches is nicely encapsulated in their differing approaches to the relationship between Torah study and <i>teshuvah</i>. Rav Kook writes that the clarity of one's Torah learning increases in accordance with the <i>teshuvah</i>&nbsp;that precedes it (14:28). Rav Soloveitchik says the reverse: Torah study brings about a purification of the personality! For Rav Kook, <i>teshuvah </i>reveals the divine within a person, which helps that person understand the Torah; for Rav Soloveitchik<i>, teshuvah </i>is a process of building oneself and Torah gives one guidelines and ideals to emulate.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">-pages 244-245</blockquote><br />While I think this is interesting to your average reader, I also can conceive of it making a great project or assignment in a Contemporary Jewish Philosophy class. You can provide students with the relevant works on <i>teshuvah </i>by Rabbi Soloveitchik and Rav Kook and then assign them to do what Ziegler has done here- compare and contrast them and come to their own conclusions as to the differences between these two greats' worldviews. If they reach the same conclusion as Ziegler, great!- you can show them his summation within this book. If not, and they come up with something different, also great- you can applaud their creativity, assuming it makes sense with the texts.<br /><br />I was also very interested to learn about the "stages of the religious odyssey depicted by Rav Soloveitchik" (354) which begin with a dialectic between Trust and Fear, then a dialectic between Love and Awe and finally <i>dvekut </i>or cleaving. Ziegler explains that this is the thrust of <i>U-Vikkashtem mi-Sham </i>(And From There You Shall Seek), a book which Soloveitchik concluded surpassed Halakhic Man "in both content and form" (344). Ziegler incisively breaks down the key ideas the Rav was building upon in the work so that people who might otherwise be confused or put off by its lofty prose can actually get a handle on it. Some people use SparkNotes or No Fear-Shakespeare to enable them to engage with difficult works; Ziegler has done that for the Rav.<br /><br /><i>Majesty and Humility </i>could be considered a magnum opus in its own right. It is meticulously researched, easy to use, considers a wide range of materials and offers something new- the ability to understand key ideas in the Rav's worldview, and how, like themes in music, they recur through his disparate works. Just like music, sometimes the theme is accompanied by an entire orchestra while other times it is the reedy thread of a flute, but it is still there and the person who knows to look for it can find it. Your average reader would not know to look for it, so Ziegler's great achievement is drawing back the curtain to show that it is there, and then demonstrating the ways in which very different pieces of Soloveitchik's thought can be puzzled together to form a vast and compelling vision.<br /><br />I consider myself an amateur enthusiast of the Rav and I learned a lot through reading this book. Whether you are someone who sees yourself as a true beginner, a knowledgeable layperson or even someone very familiar with the Rav and his philosophy, there will be a new perspective or approach for you to benefit from in this book. Go get a copy.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-majesty-and-humility-by-rav.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-6650805830340640287Wed, 15 Oct 2014 02:33:00 +00002014-10-14T22:39:24.725-04:00LeadershipOrthodox Religious LeadersReligious LeadersSex ScandalsSexual ScandalsOrthodox Religious Leaders & Sex Scandals<div class="tr_bq">Yet another sexual scandal involving a religious figure has hit the media. I think it's important to consider how to respond when such events occur. What should we say to our children, our students and all others who feel bewildered and betrayed upon reading these allegations?&nbsp;</div><br />I think we should begin by quoting from Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's remarks in his lecture on "The Duties of the King," at the RCA Midwinter Conference, January 18, 1971. These remarks appear in Rabbi Rakeffet-Rothkoff's book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Rav-World-Joseph-Soloveitchik/dp/0881256153" target="_blank">The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Volume 2.</a>&nbsp;</i><br /><blockquote>Who will win the battle in America between Orthodoxy and the dissident groups, such as the Conservative and the Reform? There is no prophet who can foresee the outcome. In my opinion, the battle will be won by the party who understands two things.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Number one, it will be the one that excels not only in piety but in morality. The Orthodox rabbi will be accepted by the whole Jewish community only when he shows the entire community that he not only wears a yarmulka but is a moral person, head and shoulders above the Reform and Conservative rabbis. The Orthodox rabbi must show that he is not a publicity hound; that he is not a lover of money. I do not say that money is bad, but there is a difference between earning a dollar and loving a dollar. The Orthodox rabbi must show that he is more sincere, more committed, and more consistent with himself than the Conservative and Reform rabbis. That is what will decide the battle: higher morality, superior morality.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>And I want to tell you, the American Jew is very intelligent. He is intelligent, discriminating, and understanding. I have great faith in the American Jew.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Number two, the outcome of the battle will be decided by the intellectual achievements of the rabbi. For instance, the Orthodox rabbi should be head and shoulders above the Conservative and Reform rabbis as far as knowledge is concerned. I mean knowledge in the widest sense of the word. The Orthodox rabbi should attain a profound understanding of Judaism. He should reach out for new horizons in his intellectual understanding of Judaism. Such achievements will make him the winner.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>Morality and intellectuality, Torah knowledge in the widest sense of the word, will ultimately decide the outcome of the battle. In reality, the battle has not yet been won; we do not know the outcome. &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>-Pages 58-59</blockquote>It is essential that our rabbis and leaders behave in a manner which demonstrates not only their intellectual breadth but their moral superiority. Two very different articles have come out in the past week about the same community. One is about a Conservative rabbi who has publicly confessed that he identifies as gay, and that as much as he loves his wife, he finds himself in a situation where he will be divorcing her in order to live authentically. This may not be a decision with which Orthodox individuals agree, but there is no question that one can respect the honesty involved in this statement. At the same time, an article has appeared alleging that an Orthodox rabbi installed a camera in the women's <i>mikvah </i>in order to watch women take showers prior to dipping in the ritual bath. While one may be able to empathize with and understand the thrill behind this sexual urge, it is a violation of the women's privacy and totally undermines the <i>mitzva </i>of <i>mikvah.&nbsp;</i><br /><i><br /></i>Of course, at the moment these are merely allegations and have not been proven. We do not know for sure that this rabbi is in fact the one responsible for installing this camera in the <i>mikvah</i>. We also do not know why it was installed (this may be far-fetched, but, for example, there could have been a complaint regarding some sort of sexual abuse or molestation where the camera was installed as a safety measure and the footage was not actually viewed). At the moment, all that we hear is what has been alleged, and it is important to keep an open mind rather than paint someone as a scoundrel when we do not know the facts.<br /><br />But let us say the worst happens, and it turns out that the rabbi is indeed guilty. How are we to respond then?<br /><br />I think at that point it is important to acknowledge two things, both of which appear in our Jewish tradition.<br /><br />1) Sexual urges are incredibly intense. Incredible Jewish leaders have succumbed to them over and over again, whether it is King David with Batsheva or R' Meir and R' Akiva pursuing the Satan disguised as an extremely attractive woman (Kiddushin 81a). These people were not lightweights. These people were scholars, kings, leaders of their generation! And yet they fell prey to sexual urges. As the Gemara reiterates in Chulin 11b, Nidah 30b and Kesubos 13b, "There is no guardian against sexual sins." In the original language, this is written as "<span style="font-family: David; font-size: 20px; line-height: 22px;">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-family: David; font-size: 20px; line-height: 22px;">אין אפוטרופוס לעריות."&nbsp;</span><br /><i><br /></i>2) There is an idea that the greater the capacity an individual has to do good, so too do they have a capacity to do evil. Many of us lead regular lives. We strive to be the best husbands, wives, mothers and fathers that we can be. We impact the people who are in our lives, which is certainly a noble endeavor- but that is all. We do not impact the entire community; we do not write books or give lectures which revolutionize Jewish thought or consolidate ideas within Jewish tradition. We do not dedicate all our time to trying to help converts in the process of conversion. We are not huge players in the scheme of things.<br /><br />Those people who are huge players find that just as they have the power and capacity to do great good, so too can they commit great harm. This is an idea we have in our secular tradition as well. Consider individuals such as Darth Vader or Voldemort. Darth Vader was originally Anakin Skywalker, the chosen one who was to bring balance to the force. Yet he was the one who turned to the Dark Side and wreaked evil upon the people...because when someone with the capacity for great good chooses to use his capacity incorrectly, the harm he can cause is far greater. The same applies to Voldemort- a brilliant, precocious individual who had the ability to become a Dumbledore-like figure or to become the darkest wizard that ever was.<br /><br />There is a story brought down in the Gemara in Sukkah 52a which epitomizes this point. (<a href="http://halakhah.com/pdf/moed/Sukkah.pdf" target="_blank">Translation is from the Soncino edition</a>.)<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">Abaye explained, [The evil inclination is] Against scholars more than against anyone; as was the case when Abaye heard a certain man saying to a woman, ‘Let us arise betimes and go on our way’. ‘I will’, said Abaye, ‘follow them in order to keep them away from [sexual] transgression’ and he followed them for three parasangs across the meadows. When they parted company he heard them say, ‘Our company is pleasant, the way is long’. ‘If it were I’, said Abaye, ‘I could not have restrained myself’, and so went and leaned in deep anguish against a doorpost, when a certain old man came up to him and taught him:<b> The greater the man, the greater his Evil Inclination.</b></blockquote>A contemporary of mine noted that Dumbledore says something similar: "I make mistakes like the next man. In fact, being- forgive me- rather cleverer than most men, my mistakes tend to be correspondingly huger."<br /><br />If the rabbi truly is guilty, then there are a host of appropriate responses. It is appropriate for our community to feel let down, betrayed, violated and saddened. It is appropriate for us to feel sorrow that the <i>mitzva </i>of <i>mikvah </i>may be impacted and undermined because women may feel like it has been impacted by sleaziness and prurience. It is appropriate for us to feel compassion and indignation on behalf of the victims. And it is appropriate for us to feel sympathy and heartbreak for the members of his family who are impacted by his actions.<br /><br />At the same time, the rabbi has done many extraordinary things for the Orthodox Jewish community, and I am not sure it makes sense to <i>pasul </i>all of them simply because he may have fallen in one area. As R' Meir did for Elisha ben Avuyah, it may be appropriate to discard the peel and retain the fruit.<br /><br />Most important of all, it is not for us to claim that we would have behaved better in his situation. We have no idea what we would do. We have very likely never been faced with his challenge, his evil inclination or been in a position where we wield that much authority. In Sanhedrin 102b, R' Ashi referred to King Menashe as his "friend." Menashe came to him in a dream and demonstrated that his knowledge of Torah was far superior to that of R' Ashi. "In that case," asked R' Ashi, "how could you have worshipped idols?" "If you had lived in my day," retorted King Menashe, "you would have lifted up the hem of your robe to run after idol worship!"<br /><br />In our current lives and in our current situations, most of us do not engage in the form of sexual sin the rabbi is alleged to have committed. But that is exactly the point. We are who we are- and for most of us, that means we are simple members of the community, not towering figures or leaders. The temptations that come with being a towering figure or leader are not ones with which we are familiar and not ones we can adequately judge. This is in no way meant to excuse such behaviors- as Rabbi Soloveitchik clearly stated, Orthodoxy can only thrive when it demonstrates a higher morality than that of its contemporaneous denominations. But it does mean we should be careful in the way we speak about and judge individuals who are alleged to have behaved this way.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2014/10/orthodox-religious-leaders-sex-scandals.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-6171304184868734913Sun, 03 Nov 2013 18:33:00 +00002013-11-03T13:40:08.473-05:00LopatinMachloket L'Shem ShamayimOrthodoxyTheTorah.comYCTYeshivat Chovevei TorahZev FarberWhat Does Orthodoxy Stand For?<div style="text-align: right;"><i>You gotta stand for something or you'll fall for anything.</i></div><div style="text-align: right;">-<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH53ImR_cqo" target="_blank">"Fall for Anything"</a> by The Script</div><br /><br />The recent rash of articles detailing Rabbi Asher Lopatin's appointment, reactions to it, and much discussion of Rabbi Zev Farber led to my finally reading "<a href="http://thetorah.com/torah-history-judaism-reader/" target="_blank">Avraham Avinu is My Father: Thoughts on Torah, History and Judaism</a>," as published on TheTorah.com.<br /><br />The stated goal of TheTorah.com is to "energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of Torah with the disciplines and findings of academic biblical scholarship." I think this is a noble goal. And I think Rabbi Farber is a noble individual. I respect what he is trying to do. He wants to reach out to the minds of questioning individuals, serious thinkers who truly wish to engage with both our textual tradition and modern scholarship, and try to present them with a way to blend the two together. This way, these individuals may still stay observant and will be able to strengthen and give back to the Orthodox community. The unstated alternative seems to be that these individuals will become completely nonobservant and may even leave Judaism altogether.<br /><br />Much ink has been spilled as to the question of whether or not Rabbi Farber is a heretic, and whether the thoughts he expresses are heretical. But I think the more important question is what makes Orthodoxy Orthodox. In short: what does Orthodoxy stand for? That is what the real disagreement here is about. And I even think, that framed in the right way, it could be and perhaps is, a <i>machloket l'shem shamayim</i>, a disagreement for the sake of heaven.<br /><br />On the one side, we have individuals who see Orthodoxy as something which is very much concerned with the "dox" part. Being Orthodox means not only worrying about what foods I put into my mouth, but also what thoughts I allow into my mind. Certain thoughts are not permissible. We must believe certain things (most commonly the Rambam's 13 Ikrei Emunah). Changing the official creed to which those who are Orthodox must subscribe by default devalues and waters down Orthodoxy, making it less than it is. In fact, it might not even make it Orthodoxy anymore. As 'The Script' says, we must stand for something or we will fall for anything. Orthodoxy means standing up for these 13 Ikrei Emunah at all costs. If one does not believe these, that individual might be orthoprax, but certainly not Orthodox.<br /><br />On the other side, we see individuals who see Orthodoxy as something more to do with practice. To be Orthodox is to be <i>shomer Torah u'mitzvot </i>as it pertains to actions. If one keeps Shabbat, observes Kashrut, lights the Chanukah menorah and makes a Pesach Seder, among other laws, one is Orthodox. Issues of belief do not come into it, and neither do situations where we are unsure of one's practice (for instance, if I say I am gay, and you do not know whether or not I am having anal intercourse with my partner, I ought to be permitted into the synagogue and into the community). This approach will allow for more individuals to identify as Orthodox, more individuals to swell our synagogues, and will also keep those individuals who might be perceived as some of the most gifted (given their curiosity and questioning) within our ranks, as we will not exclude them based on belief system.<br /><br />So we come down to a difference in goal. Is the goal of Orthodoxy to uphold certain tenets of belief and faith, or is the goal of Orthodoxy to be as inclusive as possible, except for situations in which individuals do not follow the majority of <i>practices </i>associated with observance? If it is the first goal, we will end up excluding many people. If it is the second goal, we will end up welcoming in many more people. One goal is more God focused- we must uphold the beliefs and creed that make us a nation that was chosen by God. The other goal is more Human focused- we must do everything in our power to allow access to all humans (women, LGBTQ+ etc) into our synagogues if they are not violating a certain number of our practices outright.<br /><br />This is a clash that I feel personally, as I am constantly oscillating between the two sides of the argument. On the one hand, as a humanist, I would prefer for everyone to be welcome in our community and in our synagogues, no matter how they express themselves. On the other hand, I do believe that we need to stand for something, which means standing for God, and that there are certain matters of belief and principle which should not be crossed and are immutable.<br /><br />Where it gets tricky is that sometimes even those who believe we ought to stand for certain principles need to redefine the principles. For instance, what does it mean to believe that the entire Torah that we now have was given to Moses? There are professors who teach Intro to Bible classes that<a href="http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2009/11/ibn-ezra-biblical-criticism-secret-of.html" target="_blank"> include fascinating readings of Ibn Ezra which indicate that certain pesukim were added to the text later</a>. Even Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg<a href="http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2010/06/eighth-principle-our-torah-is-not.html" target="_blank"> needed to modify</a> what the Eighth Principle meant. And anyone who studies the Tanakh seriously is aware of the many passages that seem to contradict one another, or seem to have been added later. Certainly, some people (especially those who do not study Tanakh thoroughly) can simply ignore these. But others try to grapple with them, and certainly there have been Orthodox approaches attempting to make sense of the different accounts and contradictions. But sometimes these approaches are not satisfying to a particular student. What then?<br /><br />It is the "what then" that Rabbi Farber is trying to address. It is all very well and good to tell a student they are not learned enough to make a decision of accepting what historical-biblical criticism has to say. That is not persuasive. It is well and good to tell a student that there are limits to what they can understand and sometimes they have to surrender to the Halakhah (or in this case, perhaps Hashkafah). But not every student will be willing to do that. At that point, there is perhaps a choice- either the student can decide they do not accept the tenets underwriting traditional Orthodoxy, and likely become orthoprax, Conservative, Reform or leave the tradition altogether, or they can try an approach like Rabbi Farber's, which seeks to redefine the meaning of Torah miSinai, and perhaps stay within Orthodoxy. Which choice is better for the student and for us as we see the Orthodox movement? Where do we draw our line?<br /><br />Rabbi Farber wants us to include individuals who wish to accept historical-biblical criticism within Orthodoxy. The way he aims to do this is by advocating that we drop the binary divide between thinking that everything in the Tanakh must have literally happened in the way it is written. Instead, he wishes to advocate a world-view where "humans have the capacity to function in more than one mode," including a mode where they are "totally on his or her own" and one where a person "encounters the divine and channels it in some way." Therefore, when there are contradictions in the Torah, Farber sees these as reflecting the "respective understandings of different prophets channeling the divine message in their own way; each divine encounter refracts the light of Torah from the same prism but in a distinct way."<br /><br />Farber sees the people as having been given insight "into God's plan for Israel/ the Jews" via divine encounter and suggests that over the years, these "revelations are synthesized and reframed." We need to seek out how "any given halacha or ideal functioned in any given society, particularly the original society, ancient Israel" in order to see the ideas in "their relative purity and reapply them to our times." What is important is not the law itself, but the message or value beneath the law.<br /><br />What is interesting is that nothing that Farber here suggests is new or unique to him. This is the interpretation of divine revelation proffered by the Conservative movement based on their understanding of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel's saying that the Torah is a 'midrash' on revelation. Heschel wrote in <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Search-Man-Philosophy-Judaism/dp/0374513317" target="_blank">God in Search of Man</a></i>:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">In speaking about revelation, the more descriptive the terms, the less adequate is the description. The words in which the prophets attempted to relate their experiences were not photographs but illustrations, not descriptions, but songs. A psychological reconstruction of the prophetic act is, therefore, no more possible than the attempt to paint a photographic likeness of a face on the basis of a song. The word "revelation" is like an exclamation; it is an <i>indicative </i>rather than a descriptive term. Like all terms that express the ultimate, it points to its meaning rather than fully rendering it. "It is very difficult to have a true conception of the events at Sinai, for there has never been before nor will there ever be again anything like it." "We believe," says Maimonides, "that the Torah has reached Moses from God in a manner which is described in Scripture figuratively by the term 'word,' and that nobody has ever known how that took place except Moses himself to whom that word reached.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">We must try not to read chapters in the Bible dealing with the event at Sinai as if they were texts in systematic theology. Its intention is to celebrate the mystery, to introduce us to it rather than to penetrate or to explain it. As a report about revelation, the Bible itself is a <i>midrash.&nbsp;</i><i><br /></i>(page 185)</blockquote>Neil Gillman in his work <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Fragments-Recovering-Theology-Modern/dp/0827604033/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1383503138&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=sacred+fragments" target="_blank">Sacred Fragments: Recovering Theology for the Modern Jew</a> </i>interprets Heschel's position in this way:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The cardinal theological sin for Heschel, then, is literal-mindedness, the presumption that our theological concepts are literally true or objectively adequate. Thus Heschel’s striking claim about revelation: “As a report about revelation, the Bible itself is a <i>midrash</i>.” We understand midrash as a later interpretation of a biblical text. <span style="background-color: yellow;">But according to Heschel, even the Bible itself is a human interpretation of some prior, or more primal revelatory content that is beyond human comprehension. &nbsp;</span></blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">&nbsp;Heschel teaches that two events occurred at Sinai: God’s giving of the Torah and Israel’s receiving of the Torah. Both parties were active in the encounter, and what emerged is colored by both its divine origin and its human appropriation. To use another of Heschel’s formulations, Judaism reflects “a minimum of revelation and a maximum of interpretation.” Accordingly, “the source of authority is not the word as given in the text but Israel’s understanding of the text.” Yet, as we shall see, Heschel takes the Jewish legal system that emerges out of this revelation very seriously indeed. … </blockquote>Farber then goes on to speak about important characters in the Tanakh. He introduces the concept of mnemohistory vs. history, which he defines as a mixture of legends, myths, lore and "nuggets of cultural memory" all put together to explain the past. He suggests that we can make sense of the fact that current archeological findings do not support texts in the Tanakh (his examples include not only the account of Adam and Eve in the garden, but even the exodus from Egypt) by seeing them as the stories that a people or nation tells itself in order to explain itself and its values. Farber is not altogether alone in his view. Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks,<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roFdPHdhgKQ" target="_blank"> in a recent debate with Dawkins, said (minute 18 on)</a> "Well Adam and Eve is clearly a parable because there was no first human, and there may have been a mitochondrial Eve, but I mean, that was somewhere else and in another country, and besides [...] is dead, so no, I mean, Adam and Eve are really, I mean, if you trace it back 6000 years ago, obviously the Bible is telling us the story about the first dawn of civilization, I mean there was an [art?] 25,000 years ago." Dawkins continues and says, "So Adam and Eve is symbolic, but the passing of the Red Sea- I mean, how do you decide which bits are symbolic and-?" and Rabbi Sacks says, "Very simple. The rabbis in the 10th century laid down the following principle: If a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally, and that was 8 centuries before the word 'scientist' was coined so they weren't just doing it to please Richard Dawkins. They were doing it for their own intellectual integrity." The moderator points out that many people do believe it literally and Rabbi Sacks says, "In Judaism, we take a strong view on this. We have now for [14,000?] years and we say reading the Bible literally is heresy. Why so? Because we believe in its a fundamental of rabbinic Judaism, that there is an Oral Tradition alive alongside the Written Tradition and simply to read the words as they're written is heretical in Judaism." However, Rabbi Sacks does say that he believes God's call to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac <i>literally happened </i>and that that whole narrative was "critically misunderstood with disastrous consequences." (Rabbi Sacks continues his exploration of both of these passages in his work <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Partnership-Science-Religion-Meaning/dp/0805243011/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1383503189&amp;sr=1-1&amp;keywords=the+great+partnership+science" target="_blank">The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning,</a> </i>on pages 174-181 in the hardcover version).<br /><br />It's interesting that Rabbi Sacks sees the Adam and Eve story as a parable due to conflicts with science, but stops there, while Rabbi Farber sees other pieces as conflicting with archaeological records or historical records that we do or do not have, and therefore continues to the point where he denies that main figures within our tradition ever literally existed (such as the aforementioned Abraham). Or at least, like King Arthur, he suggests the figure is much embellished. Is it that Rabbi Sacks does not find a proof in the lack of a discovery (such as the lack of archaeological records)? What stops Rabbi Sacks from continuing down the road that Rabbi Farber is led on, given that they both seem to begin with the same principle? And would Rabbi Sacks be troubled by Rabbi Farber's conclusions? These are not questions I can answer, but I think they would make for a very interesting discussion with Rabbi Sacks himself.<br /><br />Rabbi Farber determines that the "stories of the Torah have meaning and significance irrespective of their historicity. The Torah has holiness as the Israelite and Jewish encounter with God even after one realizes that the idea of God dictating it entirely and word-for-word to Moses on Mount Sinai is troubling." This merely restates the position of the Conservative movement that has already been articulated. Farber explains that the stories of the Tanakh teach us morals, lessons and values and they are simply couched in a way where humanity could understand them and find them palatable. The Torah is, at its essence, a great parable, and the meaning ought to be found in the <i>nimshal </i>rather than in the <i>mashal.</i>&nbsp;Farber's position reminds me of why I read fiction and fantasy, and of one of the greatest lines in <i>The Things They Carried </i>by Tim O' Brien; "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth" (page 80).<br /><br />Farber's philosophy is noble. He wants to create meaning for those who want to accept historical and biblical criticism, and he believes he has done it. Read the Torah as an ahistorical document that exists to teach us about morals, values and ethics! is his rallying cry. Do not lose the meaning and the message simply because you see something that conflicts with it. Keep the meaning and the message, and remain a part of the Orthodox community rather than leaving religion altogether. Like many in the Conservative movement, Farber sees the Torah as a human-made document which is representative of the encounter between God and His people, a <i>midrash </i>on revelation. The characters do not need to have literally existed to teach us the morals, messages and values that they do.<br /><br />However, this raises the following questions:<br /><br />(a) Farber states that he believes that "halakha and Jewish theology must develop organically from Torah interpretation and not by excising or ignoring any part of the Torah or Chazal's interpretation." But earlier in the essay he says we need to find out "how any given halacha or ideal functioned in any given society, particularly the original society, ancient Israel," in order to see the ideas "in their relative purity and reapply them to our times." By making this point, he seems to suggest that a historical understanding of halahka and societal impact upon halakha would mean that certain halakhot can be changed or might no longer be valid (given that our goal would be to find the halakha in its "relative purity and reapply" it to our times). Per some, that is de facto against against Chazal, as it assumes Chazal were the creators of a tradition, influenced by their times and the countries in which they lived, rather than the vessels of a tradition. For those who believe that Chazal are the vessels of a tradition, historical circumstance should have no bearing, <a href="http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2008/07/introduction-to-haredi-philosophy-part_23.html" target="_blank">as the Rav argued in his essay in Light magazine.</a>&nbsp;Therefore, claiming that we should not excise or ignore any part of the Torah or Chazal's interpretation while at the same time saying we need to find the underlying cause of halakhot may be contradictory or impossible for some.<br /><br />(b) I do not see why Farber gives so much validity to Chazal and indeed thinks that their interpretations cannot be excised or ignored. He is perfectly fine ignoring the understanding of Chazal that the characters in Torah are absolutely true-to-life historical figures who lived and breathed. Why is it acceptable to him to ignore this underlying point of view, but it is still important to him to accept their opinion on halakha? This is especially curious in circumstances where they call upon historical events in Judaism to explain why we have halakhot. (For instance, if the Exodus is nothing but a fable that exists to teach us certain lessons, morals and values, I can understand the need to have a meal to discuss the fable and the values we learn from it. But does it really matter so much whether or not I talk about matzah, maror and the Korban Pesach, and why, if all of these are just metaphors?) This leads to a larger question: where does practice and ritual come into play if the entire document off of which we create these practices and rituals is simply a large parable or metaphor? What is the point of keeping these practices or rituals; why don't we just focus on the underlying ethics, values and morals of the document? It seems absurd to follow laws that were <i>learned out </i>of human-written lore and mnemohistory; as well follow laws that are <i>learned out </i>of Bernard Cornwall's King Arthur trilogy.<br /><br />(c) What is the compelling reason to remain a Jew according to Farber's theology? Let us suppose that he is correct that our allegedly human-written texts are the result of some sort of revelation between God and man, specifically 'Jewish' man. If I can get these ethics, morals and values from a different religion (Christianity, Islam) that may couch them in different human-written texts, why ought I to stay Jewish rather than becoming a universally moral person with no official religion? And even if I do stay Jewish in the sense that I hold by the values, ethics and morals derived from my own lore and literature, why would I continue to practice or be observant? After all, my practices would all be based on figurative parables that never actually occurred; why should my life be restricted or inconvenienced by this fiction? Let me take the core messages and leave aside the wrapping in which they were encased, much as a person takes the gift and throws out the wrapping paper.<br /><br />(d) Why should one believe in revelation? Farber starts from the premise that one wants to be a believing Jew, but is struggling to reconcile Torah and archeology/ historical evidence/ biblical criticism with Torah. He therefore posits that we should see Torah as the story and lore that encases our uniquely Jewish values and ethics. And he says we should believe the human authors of the Torah were responding to God (and were perhaps even prophets). But it would seem simpler and easier to say that the human authors of the Torah were simply creative individuals who came up with some very compelling parables about radical value systems and ethics. There is no proof against revelation- but there is no proof for it, either, and not even a claim that it happened, if the Sinai experience never occurred, is a parable, or did not occur in the format that was suggested, before hundreds of thousands of people.<br /><br />(e) Why would one die for such a religion? People are willing to die for those they love, their family members, their community. (See the heroic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roi_Klein" target="_blank">story of Roi Klein</a>). But Farber is saying that Jews should all be willing to die for an <i>idea. </i>You should not convert or change your religion because you hold fast to the ideas couched within human-written texts that the Torah represents. It's true that we do believe in the power of ideas. Many people who serve in the army do so because they want to defend this country's ideas and ideals of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of speech and so forth. But just as many do so because they want the benefits, the education, or need more discipline or structure in their lives. If we mandated that people needed to die for the USA because of the ideas the US stands for, some would, but many wouldn't. But people are willing to die for brotherhood, fellowship, love, community- in short, their family. I would posit that if you take away the historical significance of our religion, the episodes where our real-life relatives chose not to bow before the Nimrods, Pharoahs or Nebuchadnezzars of the past, you take away a fundamental connection with the past, and with the families that we are a part of, and you take away a large part of the reason that people commit to the religion and to live by it or die by it. If you say the Torah is an ahistorical collection of ideas<i>,</i>then if&nbsp;given the choice between converting or dying, it would make much more sense to slightly change one's idea rather than to die for it, or even to convert but secretly continue to believe in one's original idea. Many of the people who died for Judaism throughout history died because it was the religion of their forefathers in a literal sense, because our ancestors were willing to give up anything to keep this religion. People died because of the connection they shared with real-life heroes who would not bow, not because of a thought.<br /><br />(f) If Farber's theology were adopted on a large scale, would it help or would it hinder Jews? I think that Farber's theology might be helpful for, as Maimonides might have put it, the 'elite' thinkers who would otherwise face a crisis of faith and would not continue to believe. These individuals can choose to see the Torah as a collection of ahistorical truths, values and ethics written by humans but caused by a revelation between God and man. But for the majority of people, or 'the masses,' as we might otherwise put it, this thought system would be utterly detrimental. Although he argues against this choice, Farber himself admits he has met people who would no longer practice if the events in the Torah were proved not to have occurred. Therefore, he agrees that if the events in the Torah never really happened, there are many people who would not feel a connection to it, practice its laws, or die for it. If, therefore, Farber's theology were adopted on a large scale, it is likely that it would simply lead to more disbelief and less observance, contrary to his goals.<br /><br />(g) Why does Farber's theology go this far and no further? If we have already interpreted the entire Torah as an ahistorical compilation of truths, values and messages, why ought they to be seen as <i>God's </i>truths, values and messages rather than human truths, values and messages? Why ought we to still believe in prophecy, a phenomenon science has never seen or identified? Why ought we to still believe in revelation? Why pray an elaborate liturgy which makes reference to ahistorical figures all the time (praying to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as stand-ins for certain values)? Why follow <i>chukim</i> in the Torah where we don't understand the values or ethics underlying the law (for example, <i>shatnez</i>)?&nbsp;Farber suggests we can isolate history from practice. Just because something didn't happen, doesn't make it not true or valuable. We can practice religion and Judaism even if we don't think the narratives are true in a literal sense. But why would that not lead to further suspicion? Why the need for all these categories and designations- for rituals of <i>tumah </i>and <i>taharah </i>- are those also just stand-ins for certain ethics or values, and can we replace them in modern times? Why a need for <i>halakha </i>at all? Why are we bound, if there was no true covenant truly accepted between Abraham and God? Why are we bound if there was no literal Sinai?<br /><br />I don't understand why Farber stops where he does, and goes no further, unless it is simply out of desperation. He wants to believe, and he also wants to be engaged in scholarly biblical and historical criticism. He has found a system that does not directly contradict the theory of revelation. Revelation can still have happened, but what was truly revealed were ethics, precepts and ideas, and these were couched in human terms and stories by human authors, perhaps even based on original characters that did exist (much like King Arthur). It's true that revelation <i>could </i>still have happened in that format. But wouldn't it be more sensible to believe that <i>humans </i>simply wrote this mnemohistory <i>without </i>revelation occurring? What is it that pushes one to believe in revelation in this case? Or is this simply where faith comes in- faith is believing in this form of revelation? If so, I do not think this is a faith that will stand the test of time- and I point you to the <a href="http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/09/conservative-judaism-turns-100-works-face-demise/" target="_blank">dwindling numbers in the Conservative movement </a>as my evidence. Regular people find it very difficult to attach themselves to ideas rather than to events, history and family, especially when they have cause to be suspicious that the ideas may have been the outcome of human creativity rather than Godly creativity.<br /><br />The question we must really address is this: What does Orthodox Judaism stand for?<br /><br />Is it about practice?<br />Is it about belief?<br />Is it about retaining the greatest number of adherents to the system?<br />Is it about retaining true, faithful adherents to the system, even if the numbers are small?<br />What are its limits? Where do we draw lines between Orthodoxy and other denominations?<br />Ought there to be limits?<br /><br />Farber believes that if there is a clash between the faith of individuals and the Torah, the Torah itself must change. Let us reinterpret the Torah as an ahistorical compilation of texts written by prophets who were teaching us values via parables. That way, people will still believe in the core precept of revelation. Many others believe that if there is a clash between the faith of individuals and the Torah, the individuals must change. They must surrender to the halakha, to the authority of the Torah, or to the fact that they do not or will not understand, and must, as Rilke says, "live the questions." These people say the core precepts are larger; we believe, not only in revelation, but in the historicity of the text. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived, loved, and died beloved by God. And of course, there is a spectrum of responses in between these two poles. Farber is guided by a love of the people, and others are guided by a love of God. We need to remember that at its core, the <i>machloket </i>here is a <i>machloket l'shem shamayim. </i>How is God best served? Is He best served by uprooting some precepts to save the main one (if, indeed, revelation <i>is </i>the main precept)? Or by taking a firm stand that all the precepts must hold, even if that places others outside the Orthodox camp?<br /><br />Can we engage with Farber and see him as a noble individual with God-focused motivations, even if some are concerned that his ideas are misleading or dangerous? Or, precisely because the ideas might be misleading or dangerous, should we not engage with him at all, and place him and those marred by association with him outside of the established community, so that no one else may be negatively impacted by his words? Is there a middle ground, and what is it? Are certain people equipped to think about his ideas, while others ought to be protected from them? And who makes this determination?<br /><br />What does it mean to call oneself an Orthodox Jew?<br /><br />What does Orthodoxy stand for?http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2013/11/what-does-orthodoxy-stand-for.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-490447975870107454Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:51:00 +00002013-10-12T21:51:15.626-04:00BibleKingsMelachimBernard Cornwell and Tanakh 2 <div class="tr_bq">There's a fantastic scene in <i>The Winter King </i>that sheds light on some texts in Tanakh. It appears on pages 386-387 in the hardcover version. Here's the scene.</div><blockquote>Arthur clasped me again, then called for his servant Hygwydd to help him tug off the suit of heavy scale armour. It came off over his head, leaving his short-cut hair tousled. "Would you wear it?" he asked me.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"Me?" I was astonished&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"When the enemy attack," he said, "they'll expect to find me here and if I'm not here they'll suspect a trap." He smiled. "I'd ask Sagramor, but his face is somewhat more distinctive than yours, Lord Derfel. You'll have to cut off some of that long hair, though." My fair hair showing beneath the helmet's rim would be a sure sign I was not Arthur, "and maybe trim the beard a little," he added.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>I took the armour from Hygwydd and was shocked by its weight. "I should be honoured," I said.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"It is heavy," he warned me. "You'll get hot, and you can't see to your sides when you're wearing the helmet so you'll need two good men to flank you." He sensed my hesitation. "Should I ask someone else to wear it?"&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"No, no, Lord," I said. "I'll wear it."&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"It'll mean danger," he warned me.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"I wasn't expecting a safe day, Lord," I answered. &nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"I shall leave you the banners," he said. "When Gorfyddyd comes he must be convinced that all his enemies are in one place. It will be a hard fight, Derfel."&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>"Galahad will bring help," I assured him.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote>He took my breastplate and shield, gave me his own brighter shield and white cloak, then turned and grasped Llamrei's bridle. "That," he told me once he had been helped into the saddle, "was the easy part of the day."</blockquote>When I first read this scene, it made me take a look at and question the famous scene in which Saul dresses David in his own armor to fight against Goliath. I got all excited and suggested to my husband that maybe Saul was insinuating to David that David should impersonate Saul and pretend that it is Saul himself who is fighting the giant. Then, when David refuses the armor, he is not only refusing the king's gift, but also refusing to impersonate Saul. 'I'll win on my own merit,' he seems to be saying, 'rather than pretend that I am you, and that you have won.'<br /><br />However, I then reread the full scene in I Samuel 17. My potential reading doesn't work for several reasons: a) the king has publicly offered a reward for anyone who plans to fight Goliath, which suggests he does not intend to fight the giant himself b) although Saul dresses David in his armor, it is not clear that they are alone; this could be taking place in front of an audience and c) Saul wishes David to "Go with God" which suggests he is not angry with the youth for refusing to impersonate him. Also, the only other place that I remember offhand where a king has someone dressed in his clothing is Ahaseurus and Mordechai, and there the issue wasn't impersonation, but rather, honor. So it could be that Saul simply wished to honor David by dressing him in his armor rather than subtly trying to hint that David ought to impersonate him and allow him to take credit for the victory.<br /><br />In support for my thesis, the questions remain: Why does Saul dress David in HIS OWN armor rather than simply asking David's brother or another person to give up their armor to the youth? Why does Saul HIMSELF dress the youth (remember, at this point the youth was simply a servant who played the lyre for him?) And after this battle, why does Saul take it so hard that the women sing that he has slain thousands, but David his tens of thousands (did he not himself assure David's reputation through allowing him to fight Goliath and then promoting him to his army?)<br /><br />But if, from the very beginning, Saul had been trying to insinuate that David ought to let him have the glory, then of course it would fester that the youth had refused to permit him this, and had instead insisted on going out with his face clearly visible and recognizable to all...<br /><br />The other text where this scene more aptly applies is the famous battle with King Ahab and King Jehosophat.<br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>כט</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיַּעַל מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוֹשָׁפָט מֶלֶךְ-יְהוּדָה, רָמֹת גִּלְעָד.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>29</b>&nbsp;So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah went up to Ramoth-gilead.</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="" name="30"></a><b>ל</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל-יְהוֹשָׁפָט, הִתְחַפֵּשׂ וָבֹא בַמִּלְחָמָה,<span style="background-color: yellow;"> וְאַתָּה, לְבַשׁ בְּגָדֶיךָ</span>; וַיִּתְחַפֵּשׂ מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיָּבוֹא בַּמִּלְחָמָה.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>30</b>&nbsp;And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat: 'I will disguise myself, and go into the battle; but put thou<span style="background-color: yellow;"> on thy royal robes</span>.' And the king of Israel disguised himself, and went into the battle.</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="" name="31"></a><b>לא</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וּמֶלֶךְ אֲרָם צִוָּה אֶת-שָׂרֵי הָרֶכֶב אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם, לֵאמֹר, לֹא תִּלָּחֲמוּ, אֶת-קָטֹן וְאֶת-גָּדוֹל:&nbsp; כִּי אִם-אֶת-מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְבַדּוֹ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>31</b>&nbsp;Now the king of Aram had commanded the thirty and two captains of his chariots, saying: 'Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the king of Israel.'</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="" name="32"></a><b>לב</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיְהִי כִּרְאוֹת שָׂרֵי הָרֶכֶב אֶת-יְהוֹשָׁפָט, וְהֵמָּה אָמְרוּ אַךְ מֶלֶךְ-יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא, וַיָּסֻרוּ עָלָיו, לְהִלָּחֵם; וַיִּזְעַק, יְהוֹשָׁפָט.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>32</b>&nbsp;And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said: 'Surely it is the king of Israel'; and they turned aside to fight against him; and Jehoshaphat cried out.</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="" name="33"></a><b>לג</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיְהִי, כִּרְאוֹת שָׂרֵי הָרֶכֶב, כִּי-לֹא-מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, הוּא; וַיָּשׁוּבוּ, מֵאַחֲרָיו.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>33</b>&nbsp;And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw that it was not the king of Israel, that they turned back from pursuing him.</td></tr><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><a href="" name="34"></a><b>לד</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וְאִישׁ, מָשַׁךְ בַּקֶּשֶׁת לְתֻמּוֹ, וַיַּכֶּה אֶת-מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֵּין הַדְּבָקִים וּבֵין הַשִּׁרְיָן; וַיֹּאמֶר לְרַכָּבוֹ, הֲפֹךְ יָדְךָ וְהוֹצִיאֵנִי מִן-הַמַּחֲנֶה--כִּי הָחֳלֵיתִי.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>34</b>&nbsp;And a certain man drew his bow at a venture, and smote the king of Israel between the lower armour and the breastplate; wherefore he said unto the driver of his chariot: 'Turn thy hand, and carry me out of the host; for I am sore wounded.'</td></tr></tbody></table><br />In this story, Ahab deflects attention from himself by having Jehosophat dress in royal robes. The enemy assumes Jehosophat is the King of Israel (when in reality he is the King of Judah). However, the scheme doesn't work because Ahab is killed by a random bowshot. It is, however, another example where disguise is used in battle to achieve a certain effect.<br /><br />http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2013/10/bernard-cornwell-and-tanakh-2.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-3696016344678868377Sun, 13 Oct 2013 01:33:00 +00002013-10-12T21:33:44.109-04:00ShmuelBernard Cornwell & TanakhA friend recommended that I check out The Saxon Tales by Bernard Cornwell, who she praised as a believable author of historical fiction. I did check him out, but since the library I subscribe to didn't have The Saxon Tales, I instead picked up his retelling of the legend of Arthur. I love his revision of the tales, not least because it sheds a lot of light on Tanakh (especially I Samuel- II Kings).<br /><br />I wanted to type up some of the pieces that I felt were especially relevant. The first piece is excerpted from <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Winter-King-Arthur-Books/dp/0312156960" target="_blank">The Winter King</a>, </i>pages 242-243 in the hardcover version. I felt it did a great job of demonstrating the love that men at arms feel for one another, and support the traditional reading in I Samuel of Jonathan and David as brothers-in-arms.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">The bards sing of love, they celebrate slaughter, they extol kings and flatter queens, but were I a poet I would write in praise of friendship.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">I have been fortunate in friends. Arthur was one, but of all my friends there was never another like Galahad. There were times when we understood each other without speaking and others when words tumbled out for hours. We shared everything except women. I cannot count the number of times we stood shoulder to shoulder in the shield-wall or the number of times we divided our last morsel of food. Men took us for brothers and we thought of ourselves in the same way.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">And on that broken evening, as the city smouldered into fire beneath us, Galahad understood I could not be taken to the waiting boat. He knew I was in the hold of some imperative, some message from the Gods that made me climb desperately towards the serene palace crowning Yns Trebes. All around us horror flooded up the hill, but we stayed ahead of it, running desperately across a church roof, jumping down to an alley where we pushed through a crowd of fugitives who believed the church would give them sanctuary, then up a flight of stone steps and so to the main street that circled Yns Trebes. There were Franks running towards us, competing to be the first into Ban's palace, but we were ahead of them along with a pitiful handful of people who had escaped the slaughter in the lower town and were now seeking a hopeless refuge in the hilltop dwelling.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The guards were gone from the courtyard. The palace doors lay open and inside, where women cowered and children cried, the beautiful furniture waited for the conquerors. The curtains stirred in the wind.&nbsp;</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">I plunged into the elegant rooms, ran through the mirrored chamber and past Leanor's abandoned harp and so to the great room where Ban had first received me. The King was still there, still in his toga, and still at his table with a quill in his hand. "it's too late," he said, as I burst into the room with sword drawn. "Arthur failed me."</blockquote>It's worth it to keep reading to understand the relationship between Galahad and Derfel...but it's just as well not to spoil the book.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2013/10/bernard-cornwell-tanakh.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-3806949713095283694Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:17:00 +00002013-07-16T09:19:04.022-04:00God's Dwelling PlaceHuman Beit HaMikdashGod Dwells Within Us: The Human Beis HaMikdashI was reading the Tisha B'av-To-Go put out by Yeshiva University, <a href="http://download.yutorah.org/2013/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5773_Rabbi_Willig.pdf" target="_blank">specifically the article by Rabbi Yehuda Willig</a>, when I came across this fascinating Alshich (in Chapter 31 of Shemot) being cited:<br /><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: large;">ואם כן כיון שהמשכן אין השראת שכינה בו מצד עצמו כי אם באדם כמה דאת אמר (לעיל כה ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, <span style="background-color: yellow;">כי בתוכו לא נאמר אלא בתוכם שהוא כי היכל ה' הוא האדם</span> וממנו יתפשט אל המשכן. ואם כן אמור מעתה איך בשבת שהאדם הוא היכל ה' יעשה מלאכה במשכן שהוא עצמו מצד עצמו אין בו שכינה אלא ממה שנמשך לו מן האדם, שעל ידי היות האדם היכל ה' נמשך אל המשכן: </span></div><br />Well, actually, the one cited in the article was from Shemot, Chapter 25:<br /><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-size: large;">ושכנתי בתוכם ולא אמר בתוכו.<span style="background-color: yellow;"> והוא כי הנה שמעתי לומדים מכאן כי עיקר השראת שכינה באדם הוא ולא בבית</span> מאומרו בתוכם</span>. </div><br /><span style="font-size: large;">This is translated as: <i>It says that I dwell among them and not (that I will dwell) in it. And the idea is, because I heard those who extract from here that the main residence of the Shechinah is in man himself, and not in the home (Beis HaMikdash), from the fact that it says (I will dwell among) them.&nbsp;</i></span><br /><br />Rabbi Willig goes on to say:<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq">This incredible concept demonstrates the thought we mentioned previously, that each person has such immense significance. Each person is charged with the responsibility to become a living Beis HaMikdash, to use his abilities and talents to bring more Godliness into this world. Therefore, with the loss of every single Jewish life, we mourn and grieve as we do over the loss of the Beis HaMikdash.</blockquote>He then goes on to explore the idea that the earth with which God created Adam originated from the place the Beit HaMikdash would one day stand, and given what we now know (in addition to another point he sets up about Eicha vs. Ayekah), we understand why.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2013/07/god-dwells-within-us-human-beis.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-8180072063512572499Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:17:00 +00002013-07-15T21:17:26.648-04:00Fairy Tales and TanakhFamineFairy Tales & Tanakh: Famine in Lamentations and The Arabian NightsAs I listened to Eicha being read tonight, the following <i>pasuk </i>in Chapter 4<i>&nbsp;</i>struck me:<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ה</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;הָאֹכְלִים, לְמַעֲדַנִּים, נָשַׁמּוּ, בַּחוּצוֹת; הָאֱמֻנִים עֲלֵי תוֹלָע, חִבְּקוּ אַשְׁפַּתּוֹת.&nbsp; {ס}</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>5</b>&nbsp;They that did feed on dainties are desolate in the streets; they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills.&nbsp;<b>{S}</b></td></tr></tbody></table>I was reminded of the story in Gittin 56a of Martha, daughter of Boethius.<br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: #ffffe7;">The biryoni</span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_56.html#56a_11" style="background-color: #ffffe7; color: blue;"><sup style="font-size: 11.199999809265137px;">11</sup></a><span style="background-color: #ffffe7;">&nbsp; were then in the city. The Rabbis said to them: Let us go out and make peace with them [the Romans]. They would not let them, but on the contrary said, Let us go out and fight them. The Rabbis said: You will not succeed. They then rose up and burnt the stores of wheat and barley so that a famine ensued. Martha the daughter of Boethius was one of the richest women in Jerusalem. She sent her man-servant out saying, Go and bring me some fine flour. By the time he went it was sold out. He came and told her, There is no fine flour, but there is white [flour]. She then said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went he found the white flour sold out. He came and told her, There is no white flour but there is dark flour. She said to him, Go and bring me some. By the time he went it was sold out. He returned and said to her, There is no dark flour, but there is barley flour. She said, Go and bring me some. By the time he went this was also sold out. She had taken off her shoes, but she said, I will go out and see if I can find anything to eat. Some dung stuck to her foot and she died.</span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_56.html#56a_12" style="background-color: #ffffe7; color: blue;"><sup style="font-size: 11.199999809265137px;">12</sup></a><span style="background-color: #ffffe7;">&nbsp; Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai applied to her the verse, The tender and delicate woman among you which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground.</span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_56.html#56a_13" style="background-color: #ffffe7; color: blue;"><sup style="font-size: 11.199999809265137px;">13</sup></a><span style="background-color: #ffffe7;">&nbsp; Some report that she ate a fig left by R. Zadok, and became sick and died. For R. Zadok observed fasts for forty years in order that Jerusalem might not be destroyed, [and he became so thin that] when he ate anything the food could be seen [as it passed through his throat.] When he wanted to restore himself, they used to bring him a fig, and he used to suck the juice and throw the rest away. When Martha was about to die, she brought out all her gold and silver and threw it in the street, saying, What is the good of this to me, thus giving effect to the verse, They shall cast their silver in the streets.</span><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_56.html#56a_14" style="background-color: #ffffe7; color: blue;"><sup style="font-size: 11.199999809265137px;">14</sup></a></blockquote>I had the nagging feeling that I had read this story before in the Arabian Nights. After doing some searching, I discovered this was true, and that this exact story is paralleled in "<a href="http://www.bartleby.com/16/701.html" target="_blank">The City of Brass.</a>"<br /><br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; color: #000020;">O thou, if thou know me not, I will acquaint thee with my name and my descent. I am Tedmur, the daughter of the King of the Amalekites, of those who ruled the countries with equity. I possessed what none of the Kings possessed, and ruled with justice, and acted impartially towards my subjects; I gave and bestowed, and I lived a long time in the enjoyment of happiness and an easy life, and possessing emancipated female and male slaves. Thus I did until the summoner of death came to my abode, and disasters occurred before me. And the case was this:—Seven years in succession came upon us, during which no water descended on us from heaven, nor did any grass grow for us on the face of the earth. So we ate what food we had in our dwellings, and after that we fell upon the beasts and ate them, and there remained nothing. Upon this, therefore, I caused the wealth to be brought, and meted it with a measure, and sent it by trusty men, who went about with it through all the districts, not leaving unvisited a single large city, to seek for some food. But they found it not; and they returned to us with the wealth, after a long absence. So thereupon we exposed to view our riches and our treasures, locked the gates of the fortresses in our city, and submitted ourselves to the decree of our Lord, committing our case to our Master; and thus we all died, as thou beholdest, and left what we had built and what we had treasured. This is the story: and after the substance there remaineth not aught save the vestige.</span></blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: #000020;">It is the exact same story. Both Martha and Tedmur (Tadmurah in some versions) are extremely wealthy. Both send out individuals with lots of riches to purchase food. The individuals are not successful in their mission. Therefore, both individuals take all of their riches, put them in the street (as though to say, what good are these riches to us now), and perish.&nbsp;</span><br /><span style="background-color: white; color: #000020;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #000020;">I think it's particularly interesting that in our version, Martha is Jewish, and in the Arabian Nights, Tedmur is the daughter of the Kings of the Amalekites. There's definitely something worth exploring there, although I'm not sure what.&nbsp;</span>http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2013/07/fairy-tales-tanakh-famine-in.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-4461337759880663436Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:01:00 +00002013-06-24T15:01:56.403-04:00EuthanasiaI think it would be interesting to compare two scenes from two movies when teaching about Euthanasia.<br /><br />Scene 1 is from "Million Dollar Baby."<br /><br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/o4SUU7XoRl8" width="560"></iframe><br /><br /> I keep looking for the clip for Scene 2 on YouTube, but I cannot find it. It's a scene from "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly." This film is about a man who has a stroke and then discovers he has locked-in syndrome. He understands everything that is being said to him, but he can only move his eyes.<br /><br />This is the scene (as written about in the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Picture-Health-Medical-Ethics/dp/0199735360" target="_blank">'The Picture of Health: Medical Ethics and the Movies.'</a> There, they don't link it to euthanasia, but rather to self-determination.<br /><br />This scene from Schnabel's film illustrates the complexity of self-determination for patients and medical staff. Jean-Dominique has already mastered the use of the eyeblink response to the alphabet presented by his speech therapist, Henriette. He spells out to her the words, "I want." Henriette, who has been empathetic and patient with him, smiles and asks what he wants. It will be his first expression to her of his own wishes. With each blink of his eye, he spells out, letter-by-letter, "D-E-A." As she vocalizes the next letter, "T," she realizes what he is spelling. In the process, her expression changes from empathy to confusion and hurt. She turns away from him, and when she turns back, tells him, "How dare you! There are people who love you. To whom you matter. I hardly know you, and you matter to me already. You're alive! Don't say you want to die. It's disrespectful! Obscene!...Let's hope you change your mind." She leaves the room abruptly. After several moments, she returns and apologizes. Jean-Dominique follows Henriette's movements and hears her apology, but mentally asks, "For what?"<br /><br />I think it's interesting to see how moved Frank is by Maggie's request vs. how horrified Henriette is by Jean-Dominique's. I think it would be fascinating to ask students to compare these two scenes, and the reactions by Frank vs. Henriette.http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2013/06/euthanasia.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12970718.post-1856195893424918614Wed, 29 May 2013 02:58:00 +00002013-05-28T23:02:25.751-04:00BibleDavidMosesSamuelDavid & Moses: The Making of a Leader<table border="2" bordercolor="#0033FF" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="3" style="background-color: #00000; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><th>David</th><th>Moses</th></tr><tr><td>David is the youngest child in his family (except according to some interpretations which suggest that he has one younger brother called Eliyahu).</td><td>Moshe is the youngest child in his family.</td></tr><tr><td>David's mother and father have a complicated relationship. (His mother may have been married to Nachash, been widowed, and only later married his father. Per Midrash, his mother tricks his father when his father wants to sleep with a servant girl, and he is conceived through this trickery.)</td><td>Moshe's mother and father have a complicated relationship. Per Midrash, they divorced because of Pharoah's decree and only remarried (and later conceived Moshe) because their daughter told her father that he was being harsher than Pharoah himself had been.</td></tr><tr><td>David is raised in the palace as lyre-player to Saul. (I Samuel 16:22)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>כב</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיִּשְׁלַח שָׁאוּל, אֶל-יִשַׁי לֵאמֹר:&nbsp; יַעֲמָד-נָא דָוִד לְפָנַי, כִּי-מָצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָי.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>22</b>&nbsp;And Saul sent to Jesse, saying: 'Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight.'</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>Moses is raised in the palace as the adopted son of Bitya, daughter of Pharoah. (Exodus 2:10)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>י</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיִּגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד, וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת-פַּרְעֹה, וַיְהִי-לָהּ, לְבֵן; וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, מֹשֶׁה, וַתֹּאמֶר, כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>10</b>&nbsp;And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.'</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td>David kills Goliath, which frightens and antagonizes Saul, and eventually leads to his needing to run away from Saul.</td><td>Moshe kills the Mitzri (Egyptian), which frightens and antagonizes Pharoah, and eventually leads to Moses' needing to run away from Pharoah.</td></tr><tr></tr><tr><td>The son and daughter of Saul are valuable allies for David. (Both of them save his life.) (I Samuel 19:12)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>יב</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַתֹּרֶד מִיכַל אֶת-דָּוִד, בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן; וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיִּבְרַח, וַיִּמָּלֵט.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>12</b>&nbsp;So Michal let David down through the window; and he went, and fled, and escaped.</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>The daughter of Pharoah is a valuable ally for Moses. (She saves his life.) (Exodus 2:6)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ו</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַתִּפְתַּח וַתִּרְאֵהוּ אֶת-הַיֶּלֶד, וְהִנֵּה-נַעַר בֹּכֶה; וַתַּחְמֹל עָלָיו--וַתֹּאמֶר, מִיַּלְדֵי הָעִבְרִים זֶה.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>6</b>&nbsp;And she opened it, and saw it, even the child; and behold a boy that wept. And she had compassion on him, and said: 'This is one of the Hebrews' children.'</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td>David faces Saul again on multiple occasions.&nbsp;</td><td>Moses faces Pharoah again on multiple occasions.</td></tr><tr></tr><tr><td>Saul consistently has changes of heart and claims he is ready to make peace with David, but he never really is (until the end, when the choice is taken from him because David has run away to Gath).</td><td>Pharoah consistently has changes of heart and claims he is ready to send out Moses and his people, but he never really is (until the end, when the choice is taken from him because of Makat Bechorot).</td></tr><tr><td>David works as a shepherd.</td><td>Moshe works as a shepherd.</td></tr><tr><td>David has a difficult time leading his men (they continually want to kill Saul and he has to stop them; they don't want to share the booty equally and he has to intervene).</td><td>Moshe has a difficult time leading his people (they complain throughout their journey in the wilderness).</td></tr><tr><td>David sends out two spies to see if Saul has truly come. (I Samuel 26: 4)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ד</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד, מְרַגְּלִים; וַיֵּדַע, כִּי-בָא שָׁאוּל אֶל-נָכוֹן.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>4</b>&nbsp;David therefore sent out spies, and understood that Saul was come of a certainty.</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>Moses sends out 12 spies to spy out the land of Canaan. (Numbers 13:16)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>טז</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הָאֲנָשִׁים, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה לָתוּר אֶת-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה לְהוֹשֵׁעַ בִּן-נוּן, יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>16</b>&nbsp;These are the names of the men that Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua.</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td>David's people want to stone him. (I Samuel 30:6)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ו</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַתֵּצֶר לְדָוִד מְאֹד, כִּי-אָמְרוּ הָעָם לְסָקְלוֹ--כִּי-מָרָה נֶפֶשׁ כָּל-הָעָם, אִישׁ עַל-בָּנָו וְעַל-בְּנֹתָיו; וַיִּתְחַזֵּק דָּוִד, בַּיהוָה אֱלֹהָיו.&nbsp; {ס}</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>6</b>&nbsp;And David was greatly distressed; for the people spoke of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved, every man for his sons and for his daughters; but David strengthened himself in the LORD his God.&nbsp;<b>{S}</b></td></tr></tbody></table><br /><br /></td><td>Moses' people want to stone him. (Exodus 17:4, possibly Numbers 14:10)<br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ד</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיִּצְעַק מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה לֵאמֹר, מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָעָם הַזֶּה; עוֹד מְעַט, וּסְקָלֻנִי.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>4</b>&nbsp;And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying: 'What shall I do unto this people? they are almost ready to stone me.'</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr><tr><td>David cannot enter his Promised Land (he cannot build the Beit HaMikdash, even though he has stockpiled all the supplies for it). &nbsp;(I Chronicles 28:3) <b>However, his successor, Shlomo, can.</b><br /><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>ג</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וְהָאֱלֹהִים אָמַר לִי, לֹא-תִבְנֶה בַיִת לִשְׁמִי:&nbsp; כִּי אִישׁ מִלְחָמוֹת אַתָּה, וְדָמִים שָׁפָכְתָּ.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>3</b>&nbsp;But God said unto me: Thou shalt not build a house for My name, because thou art a man of war, and hast shed blood.</td></tr></tbody></table></td><td>Moses cannot enter the Promised Land. <b>However, his successor, Yehoshua, can. </b>(Numbers 20:12)<br /><b><br /></b><br /><table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="4" style="font-family: David; width: 100%px;"><tbody><tr><td class="h" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 26px; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>יב</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, יַעַן לֹא-הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם בִּי, לְהַקְדִּישֵׁנִי לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--לָכֵן, לֹא תָבִיאוּ אֶת-הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר-נָתַתִּי לָהֶם.</td><td style="direction: ltr; font-size: 19px; unicode-bidi: embed; vertical-align: top;"><b>12</b>&nbsp;And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron: 'Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.'</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table><br />http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2013/05/david-moses-making-of-leader.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Chana)3